EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement Model · EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement Model ... The definition of joint curriculum development ... integrated scientific,

“Quality for learning”

EIT Quality Assurance and Learning

Enhancement Model

Handbook for planning, labelling and reviewing EIT-labelled masters and

doctoral programmes

Revised Edition (January 2017)

The EIT – Making Innovation Happen

European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

www.eit.europa.eu

The EIT is a body of the European Union

http://www.eit.europa.eu/

1

The revised edition of the ‘Handbook for planning, labelling and reviewing EIT-labelled

masters and doctoral programmes’ has been produced jointly under the auspices of

the EIT Education Panel, appointed by the EIT Governing Board. The original and revised

editions are based on the work of Professor Lena Adamson, an EIT-contracted Quality

Expert.

2

Contents

Abbreviations and definitions ........................................................................................................................ 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

EIT - a frontrunner in European education i,ii ................................................................................................. 7

EIT Overarching Learning Outcomes (OLO) ................................................................................................... 8

The Handbook................................................................................................................................................ 10

The EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement system – a short introduction ............................ 10

Part 1 The EIT Label and the EIT QALE Model ....................................................................................... 12

The EIT Label and the basis for awarding it ................................................................................................. 12

The EIT–KIC requirements for a ‘high quality’ quality assurance system ................................................... 13

The basic questions that the EIT QALE system seeks to answer ................................................................ 14

How is the QALE system adapted to doctoral programmes? ..................................................................... 14

The Quality indicators and their individual assessment fields .................................................................... 15

Material for the review teams from KIC staff and partners – the self-assessment report ....................... 16

Working tools for reviewers – the templates (0-6) ..................................................................................... 16

Part 2 Terms and concepts ................................................................................................................... 17

‘Quality’ in the context of the EIT educational agenda ............................................................................... 17

Teaching for the Knowledge Triangle in the EIT–KIC context ..................................................................... 17

Learning outcomes in the EIT–KIC context .................................................................................................. 18

Knowledge forms in the EIT education agenda ........................................................................................... 19

Defining the relationship between the objectives, syllabus, and intended learning outcomes ............... 19

Defining ‘high quality’ intended learning outcomes ................................................................................... 20

Defining the fit-for-purpose assessment ..................................................................................................... 20

Recommendations for fair and reliable assessment ................................................................................... 20

The EIT–KICs’ recommendations for active teaching and learning ............................................................ 21

Aligned teaching and why the EIT endorses it ............................................................................................. 21

The definition of joint curriculum development .......................................................................................... 22

The definition of joint, double and multiple degrees? ................................................................................ 23

‘Research and development (R&D) projects on KIC educational activities’ in Quality indicator 3.4 ........ 23

Part 3 Templates ................................................................................................................................. 23

3

Templates for integrated and non-integrated masters programmes ........................................................ 24

Templates for doctoral programmes ........................................................................................................... 41

Annexes....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Annex 1 Common format for Diploma Supplements for EIT-labelled degrees .................................. 56

Annex 2 Examples of the EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work .. 58

Annex 3 Awarding and renewing the EIT Label: responsibilities of the parties ................................. 62

Annex 4 Templates for academic modules .......................................................................................... 63

Annex 5 Overview of the EIT overarching learning outcomes for EIT-labelled masters and doctoral

programmes ................................................................................................................................................. 74

Annex 6 Overview of the assessment fields for EIT-labelled integrated and non-integrated masters

and doctoral programmes ............................................................................................................................ 75

Annex 7 Overview of the evaluation objects within the EIT labelling system .................................... 87

References .................................................................................................................................................. 88

4

5

Abbreviations and definitions

ALO Achieved Learning Outcome

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CLC Colocation Centre

DG EAC Directorate General for Education and Culture

DS Diploma Supplement

EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

ECTS European Credit Transfer System

EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology

ESG European Standard and Guidelines

EQF European Qualification Framework

FPA Framework Partner Agreement

ILO Intended Learning Outcome

I&E Innovation and Entrepreneurship

KIC Knowledge and Innovation Community

LO Learning Outcome

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NQF National Qualification Framework

OLO Overarching Learning Outcome

QA Quality Assurance

QALE Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement

Qi Quality indicator

QF EHEA Qualification Framework of European Higher Education Area

R&D Research and Development

Course:

A course is a learning unit of at least 3 ECTS.

Academic module:

In the context of EIT labelling, an academic module is a learning unit made up of a set of courses that

together cover a workload of at least 30 ECTS. The academic module must meet the additional criteria

specified in the Handbook.

Coupling mechanism:

The coupling mechanism stipulates the additional criteria to be fulfilled for the non-integrated

programme to be eligible for labelling.

6

Integrated and non-integrated masters programmes

The EIT label is a characteristic of the evaluation objects; to date, this applies only to masters and

doctoral programmes. It is not a characteristic of an individual student. A student receives the EIT label

indirectly by successfully completing an EIT-labelled master’s or doctoral programme.

The integrated master’s programme is an EIT-labelled evaluation object in itself. The non-integrated

master’s programme comprises 3 components; the ‘host’ programme, the academic module covering at

least 30 ECTS and the coupling mechanism linking these. The 3 components jointly make up the EIT-

labelled evaluation object. Note that the ‘host’ programme is not EIT-labelled in itself, but it does have to

fulfil some of the criteria in the Handbook for the non-integrated program in order to qualify for the EIT

label. An overview of evaluation objects within the EIT-labelling system can be found in Annex 7.

Fig. 1: Integrated and non-integrated masters programmes

7

Introduction

EIT - a frontrunner in European education i,ii

The EIT was set up in 2008 as an independent EU body with the goal of taking a different route to

addressing the EU innovation challenges by integrating the Knowledge Triangle of business, higher

education, and research. The EIT’s mission is to contribute to sustainable European economic growth and

global competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity of the Member States and the European

Union in order to address major challenges faced by European society. It does this by promoting

synergies and cooperation, and integrating higher education, research and business of the highest

standards, with the aim of fostering innovation and entrepreneurship (knowledge triangle integration).

The EIT combines strategic orientation at EIT level, primarily through its Governing Board, with a bottom-

up approach within the thematic remits of its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). KICs are

highly integrated legal entities that function as pan-European partnerships and bring together excellent

universities, research centres, small and large companies, and other innovation actors on a long-term

basis around specific societal challenges.

The KICs are designated by the EIT on the basis of an open competitive call. In 2009, the EIT designated

three initial KICs in the fields of sustainable energy (KIC InnoEnergy), climate change adaptation and

mitigation (Climate- KIC), and the next-generation information society (EIT Digital, until 2015 named EIT

ICT Labs). In 2014, two new KICs were designated in the areas of healthy living and active ageing (EIT

Health), and raw materials, promoting sustainable exploration, extraction, processing, recycling and

substitution (EIT Raw Materials). In 2016, the EIT will select two more KICs: Added-value manufacturing

and Food4Future, which together promote a sustainable supply chain from resources to consumers. In

2018, pending positive results of the Horizon 2020 EIT specific review, the EIT will establish a KIC in the

thematic area of Urban Mobility.

One major task for EIT is to add to a highly skilled European workforce with a new more entrepreneurial

mindset and to be a role model for European Higher Educationiii through the integration of the education

dimension into the innovation generating process (as illustrated in Fig. 1: Integrated and non-integrated

masters programmes), as it has often been absent from the more traditional research–business

partnerships. The EIT supports the creation of tomorrow’s entrepreneurs and promotes a real change of

mindset in the direction of an entrepreneurial culture and attitude. By investing in the EIT, Europe invests

in the talent of tomorrow, who will not only create new start-ups but also contribute to innovation in

existing companies, thus becoming a source for growth. With this perspective, the KICs have developed

their own education programmes that have a very strong focus on the delivery of entrepreneurship and

innovation skills, and that are more tailored to the needs of the European innovation system.

The KICs’ higher education partners focus on developing innovative curricula that provide students,

entrepreneurs and business innovators with the knowledge, competences and skills necessary for a

knowledge and entrepreneurial society. These innovative programmes are based on partnerships

8

between different universities, companies, public bodies, NGOs, and research centres that collaborate

closely and offer double degrees, international and cross-sectorial mobility experiences, as well as applied

innovation and entrepreneurship education.

EIT Overarching Learning Outcomes (OLO)

EIT-labelled educational programmes and modules have a strong focus on creativity, innovation and

entrepreneurship, and also on shaping a sustainable society based on ethics and human values. The

mission of the EIT educational activities is therefore to ensure that the students achieve a set of EIT

Overarching Learning Outcomes (EIT OLO) addressing these issues.iv

Masters programmes

Value judgments and sustainability competencies (EIT OLO 1)

The ability to identify the short- and long-term future consequences of plans and decisions from an

integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge this into a solution-focused

approach, moving towards a sustainable society.

Entrepreneurship skills and competencies (EIT OLO 2) The ability to translate innovations into feasible business solutions.

Creativity skills and competencies (EIT OLO 3) The ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and generate new ideas.

Innovation skills and competencies (EIT OLO 4) The ability to use knowledge, ideas and technology to create new or significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, new business models or jobs.

Research skills and competencies (EIT OLO 5) The ability to use cutting-edge research methods, processes and techniques towards new venture creation and growth and to apply these also in cross-disciplinary teams and contexts.

Intellectual transforming skills and competencies (EIT OLO 6) The ability to transform practical experiences into research problems and challenges.

Leadership skills and competencies (EIT OLO 7) The ability of decision-making and leadership, based on a holistic understanding of the contributions of higher education, research, and business to value creation, in limited sized teams and contexts.

Doctoral programmes

Making value judgments and sustainability competencies (EIT OLO 1)

9

The ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans and decisions from an

integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge this into their professional

activities, moving towards a sustainable society.

Entrepreneurship skills and competencies (EIT OLO 2)

The ability to translate innovations into feasible business solutions and to lead and support others in this process.

Creativity skills and competencies (EIT OLO 3)

The ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and generate new ideas and to

inspire and support others in this process and contribute to the further development of those ideas.

Innovation skills and competencies (EIT OLO 4)

The ability to apply their research experiences combined with the knowledge, ideas, and technology of

others to create, test and implement new or significantly improved products, services, processes,

policies, new business models or jobs.

Research skills and competencies (EIT OLO 5)

The ability to produce cutting-edge original research and to extend and develop cutting-edge research

methods, processes and techniques towards new venture creation and growth also using cross-

disciplinary approaches.

Intellectual transforming skills and competencies (EIT OLO 6)

The ability to autonomously and systematically transform practical experiences into research problems

and challenges and to lead and support others in this process.

Leadership skills and competencies (EIT OLO 7)

The ability of decision-making and leadership based on a holistic understanding of the contributions of Higher Education, research and business to value creation.

In addition to the EIT Overarching Learning Outcomes, the programmes should align with and satisfy the Framework Partner Agreement (FPA) criteria dealing with:

robust entrepreneurship education,

highly integrated, innovative ‘learning-by-doing’ curriculum, c) mobility, the European dimension

and openness to the world,

outreach strategy and access policy.

Currently only integrated masters and doctoral programmes can receive the EIT label. In this revised version of ‘Quality for Learning’, the QALE system has been extended to couple an academic module with an already existing master’s programme and give it the EIT label of a ‘non-integrated master’s programme’.

10

The Handbook

In order to ensure and drive the quality and excellence of EIT-labelled programmes and modules, EIT

applies the EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement system (EIT QALE) described in this

Handbook. This Handbook is divided into three main parts.

The first part describes the basis for the EIT Label and the EIT QALE model, its components, logic and the

two processes; awarding the EIT Label to new programmes and the follow-up reviews of ongoing

programmes for the renewal (or not) of the Label, and how the results can be presented in quality

profiles.

The second part of the Handbook defines quality in higher education in the EIT context and presents and

defines some important terms and concepts connected to this and related to teaching for quality in the

Knowledge Triangle. This part is useful both when planning a new programme, for teachers who are

involved in these, and for reviewers when doing both labelling and follow-up reviews.

The third part consist of templates that should be used for both labelling and reviews. References to

other parts of the Handbook can be found in the templates, making it possible to start working with them

without further initial reading.

The Handbook offers guidelines and hands-on working tools to education coordinators, teachers and

reviewers to support them in planning, developing and reviewing these programmes. Hence, although it

primarily addresses the reviewers in the templates, these templates can also be used as a helpful tool

already when starting to plan the programmes.

The task for all involved is to plan, perform and evaluate the ‘KIC added value’, that is, to ensure that the

programmes foster a true integration of the Knowledge Triangle dimensions; research, education, and

innovation/business. The assessment of all other aspects, including the Bologna requirements, is left to

regional or national quality assurance systems. Consequently, the reviews for the EIT label complement

the accreditation processes that are based on national quality assurance systems for higher education.

The EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement system – a short

introduction

The EIT QALE system is based on the learning outcome paradigm as brought out in the Bologna process,

where the aim is to move from ‘teacher-driven’ to ‘student-centred’ teaching and learning, changing

higher education from being just knowledge based into also being competence based.v,vi,vii,viii,ix,x The EIT

Label and QALE system are laid out in the EIT Label Framework Document.xi The hallmark of EIT

educational activities is not only to educate the learner to ‘know’, but also more specifically to have the

competences to know ‘what to do’ and how to ‘solve real-life problems’, all framed within an

entrepreneurial mindset. The system is in line with European Standards and Guidelinesxii (ESG) for quality

assurance in European higher education.

11

The processes

The system includes two different review processes. The first concerns the labelling of new programmes.

The second is a review performed after four years, when the programme has also produced a number of

graduates. Here the review also takes into account the educational outcomes (examples of

student/learner products, and student, alumni and stakeholder experiences) in order to decide if the EIT

Label can be renewed or not.

Both processes (labelling and review) are performed according to the normal pattern for quality

assurance processes; 1) it starts with a self-assessment report from the programme, 2) this is then

examined by a review team that makes a recommendation to the EIT, which 3) makes the decision.

The processes are structured peer reviews, in that both the self-assessment reports and the reviews

should strictly follow the templates that are provided in the Handbook.

The guiding principle is the portfolio principle: the programmes should provide enough evidence as to

convince the review team that the programme ensures that the learners achieve the EIT OLOs and that

the other stipulated quality criteria are fulfilled.

The EIT QALE model

The EIT QALE model consists of a total set of five quality indicators in conjunction with the EIT

Overarching Learning Outcomes; Quality indicators 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Qi0 – Qi4), all divided into different

assessment fields. From these five indicators, three (Qi0, Qi1 and Qi2) are used for the labelling of new

programmes. The last two (Qi3 and Qi4) are focussed on results from and impact of the programme

implementation, and thus in order to be evaluated it is necessary for the programme to have graduates.

Follow-up reviews include all five indicators.

The first Quality indicator differs from the other four in that it addresses a number of compulsory

requirements on a yes/no basis, which all need to be fulfilled before the other indicators are reviewed.

Quality indicators 1–4 are all evaluated on a four-grade scale.

Fig. 3: The EIT QALE Model

Quality Qi 0 Qi 1 Qi 2 Qi 3 Qi 4 Stakeholder

Indicator Compulsory

Requirements

Aligned teaching

and EIT OLO

coverage

EIT learning

Environment and

Facilities

Results Experience

Assessment

fields

Assessment field

1

0.1 university and

non-academic

partner curriculum

collaboration

1.1 EIT overarching

learning outcome

coverage

2.1 robust

entrepreneurship

education

3.1 students’

entrepreneurship

competencies

4.1 student

Experience

12

Assessment field

2

0.2 ECTS and

recognition

1.2 general quality

of intended

learning outcomes

2.2 highly integrated,

appropriate

‘learning-by-doing’

curriculum

3.2 achieved learning

outcomes

4.2 alumni

Experience

Assessment field

3

0.3 application,

selection and

admission

1.3 fit for purpose

assessment

2.3 mobility,

European dimension

and openness to the

world

3.3 retention rates 4.3 other

stakeholder

experience

Assessment field

4

0.4 EIT, KIC and

academic context

1.4 availability and

format of grading

system and

assessment

Criteria (grade

Descriptors)

3.4 research and

development activities

projects on KIC

educational activities

Assessment field

5

0.5 mobility 1.5 activating and

appropriate

learning methods

Assessment field

6

0.6 coupling

mechanisms of the

non-integrated EIT-

labelled

programme

Part 1 The EIT Label and the EIT

QALE Model

The EIT Label and the basis for awarding it

The EIT Label is a quality seal awarded to an educational programme for four years, and this information

is then listed on EIT’s website. A student graduating/being admitted within the validity period of an EIT-

labelled programme (irrespective of whether the period of study was commenced prior to/completed

after the validity period) can be awarded an EIT Label certificate.

EIT-labelled programmes, modules and courses build on five groups of quality criteria:

The EIT Overarching Learning Outcomes (EIT OLOs)

Robust entrepreneurship education

Highly integrated, innovative ‘learning-by-doing’ curricula

13

Mobility, the European dimension and openness to the world

Outreach strategy and access policy.

The EIT OLOs specify — on a generic level and suitable to all KIC themes — that programmes should

ensure that students achieve skills and competencies in the EIT specific knowledge forms of Making Value

and Sustainability Judgments, Creativity, Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Research, Intellectual

Transforming and Leadership, all related to the field of their studies. These overarching intended learning

outcomes complement the intended learning outcomes of the Qualification Framework of European

Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA, ‘the Bologna framework’).xiii

The EIT OLOs should be transformed into more specific outcomes for programmes, modules and courses,

as well as being connected to fit-for-purpose forms of assessment, teaching and learning activities. They

should not be treated as separate components, but instead be integrated in a well-balanced manner to

create programmes that foster innovative and entrepreneurial mindsets based on the Knowledge

Triangle.

The EIT–KIC requirements for a ‘high quality’ quality assurance system

The mission of EIT and the KICs, in addition to creating new innovations and business, and developing

students’ and learners’ Knowledge Triangle skills and competences, is also to elaborate on the models

that enable this impact to happen. The EIT and its KICs work towards being a role model for integrating all

the parts and stakeholders of the Knowledge Trianglexiv. This applies also to the development of an

internal Quality Assurance (QA) system for the educational activities carried out within the KICs.

The EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement (EIT QALE) system:

is evidence-based, meaning that it rests on knowledge and research concerning both evaluation

and what drives quality in teaching and learning;

is constructed in a generic way so that, with simple adjustments, it can be contextualised and

applied to all types of programmes and modules regardless of content and/or level;

includes the professionals that are involved in order to create a trust base and motivation to use

the system;

has a clear stakeholder perspective;

is constructed so as to act both as a planning and an evaluation tool;

is based on a clear logic, giving evidence to its purpose;

focuses on KIC added value.

These elements are necessary requirements for a high quality QA system, making it transparent, easy to

understand and work with, and a tool for both accountability and enhancement, the two main purposes

of quality assurance.(15)

14

The basic questions that the EIT QALE system seeks to answer

The logic of the QALE system is based on two questions:

Do programmes ensure that students achieve the EIT OLOs?

Are the criteria in ‘Conditions for EIT-labelled degrees and diplomas’ fulfilled regarding a) robust

entrepreneurship education b) highly integrated innovative ‘learning -by- doing’ curriculum c)

mobility, the European dimension and openness to the world and d) outreach strategy and

access policy?

These are the two questions that education planners and teachers need to build their programmes and

modules around, and these are the questions reviewers need to answer.

How is the QALE system adapted to doctoral programmes?

The main outcome of EIT-labelled doctoral programmes is the same as for the EIT-labelled masters

programmes: the doctoral candidates should achieve the EIT overarching learning outcomes (see p. 6).

Programmes should provide the candidates with opportunities to develop a true entrepreneurial mindset

and Knowledge Triangle skills and competencies. The contents of this Handbook therefore provide useful

information for planning, performing and reviewing the EIT-labelled doctoral programmes.

However, third cycle programmes differ from second cycle ones in one fundamental aspect; they rest on

the practice of research, and as such also become highly individual. This has implications for the EIT

labelling processes; a doctoral programme cannot be treated as a study programme in the exact same

sense as the masters programmes.

Overall, the EIT-labelled doctoral programmes and their quality assurance draw on the Salzburg II

Recommendationsxvi as well as the paper on ‘Doctoral degrees beyond 2010: training talented

researchers for society.xvii

The QALE model is a set of five quality indicators (Qi0-Qi4) that are valid for both masters and doctoral

programmes, with minor adaptations in the respective assessment fields.

Quality indicator 1 is shaped around a teaching and learning situation comprising a group of students. The

objects of evaluation here consist mainly of module and programme descriptions. Doctoral Programmes

are based on the practice of research, while a ‘programme’ can be either a group of candidates or just

one individual candidate following her/his own training path. Instead of evaluating teaching processes in

relation to the EIT OLOs as for masters programmes, this indicator leaves room for a more flexible

approach for both labelling and doing follow-up reviews that suit both research training and taught

courses. In practice, what is required here is that every candidate has a doctoral work plan, which in a

sense can be compared to a programme description for masters programmes, but is used on an individual

basis. Hence, the EIT’s definition of a doctoral programme is therefore this doctoral work plan, a

document that should be used for each doctoral candidate as a transparent contractual framework of

shared responsibilities (cf. the Salzburg II Recommendations #5) between the candidate and the KIC. This

document should be revised twice a year.

15

Finally, some of the requirements of Quality indicators 0 and 2 will most easily be fulfilled via an

organisational structure (e.g. a doctoral school, doctoral training centres etc.); however, the EIT does not

prescribe any specific models for this.

The Quality indicators and their individual assessment fields

Quality indicator 0 – Compulsory requirements

All assessment areas of Quality indicator 0 are essential components of EIT-labelled degrees and are, as

such, compulsory. They are evaluated as yes/no and all assessment fields need to be fulfilled in order to

proceed with the assessment of the programme. Examples are issues to do with: mobility, number of

ECTSxviii and recognition, application, selection and admission of students.

Quality indicator 1 – Aligned teaching and EIT overarching learning outcomes coverage

Quality indicator 1 evaluates whether the programme sufficiently covers the EIT OLOs in relation to the

thematic field of the KIC. Masters programmes have additional assessment fields to evaluate whether the

programme is characterised by aligned teaching and activating teaching and learning methods (student-

centred) and whether it provides students with access to rules, regulation and assessment criteria

regarding assessment and grading.

Quality indicator 2 – EIT learning environment and facilities

Quality indicator 2 reviews the study environment. The three assessment fields for this indicator are:

robust entrepreneurship education; highly integrated, innovative ‘learning-by-doing’ curricula; and

mobility, the European dimension and openness to the world.

Quality indicator 3 – Results

This indicator consists of four assessment fields. The first field evaluates students’ entrepreneurial

thinking and potential, which is a core component and the hallmark of the EIT-labelled programs.

Examples of student entrepreneurial competencies can for instance consist of projects, products, or

entrepreneurial test scores.

The second assessment field evaluates achieved learning outcomes (ALOs), which are samples of actual

products by EIT students (e.g., masters theses, I&E theses, summer school deliverables, business

development lab deliverables etc.). The third assessment field consists of retention rates. In the case of

low retention, this needs to be closely analysed, since student drop out does not automatically mean low

programme quality. The fourth assessment field concerns outcomes by the KICs in the form of published

articles, reports, conference presentations etc. on research and development projects on KIC educational

activities. This assessment field will stimulate the KICs in doing high level evaluations and research on

their educational activities in order to know what results they achieve and why xix.

Quality indicator 4 — Stakeholder experiences

16

Quality indicator 4 is divided into three assessment fields, experiences and opinions of a) students, b)

alumni, and c) other stakeholders. Data should be gathered by questionnaires or interviews (focused

primarily on issues to do with Qi1 – Qi3), depending on how big the groups are.

Material for the review teams from KIC staff and partners – the self-

assessment report

The general principle for the choice of material to be used in both the labelling and the review process is

the portfolio principle. That is, the person(s) who is (are) responsible for the self-assessment report

chooses the necessary documentation in order to give evidence for the requirements of each assessment

field for each quality indicator. The assessment field questions found in the templates should guide this

selection, together with the examples that are given in each template under the heading ‘Examples of

material to be provided’. Note that these are examples; material may be both added and omitted from

the list, the key task is to give the best possible evidence to reviewers.

This portfolio principle is chosen for three reasons. First, overall reviews of all programmes will be too

extensive, random selections, on the other hand, risk essential information being left out. Second, the

types of documentation differ at different universities and it is impossible to list all of these correctly

here. The third reason is that when the persons who work and teach in the programmes do the selection

in direct relation to what is required for the five Quality indicators, this becomes a strong driver of

development in the programmes.

Providing material for both labelling and reviewing includes clearly indicating for reviewers where the

relevant information can be found in the chosen documents. As far as possible, official documents from

the KIC universities should be used.

A list of all material, by Quality indicator, should be attached with the name and contact information for

the KIC contact person.

Working tools for reviewers – the templates (0-6)

The main working tool for both processes, labelling and reviewing, is this Handbook, and first and

foremost the templates. Each template (0-4) addresses one Quality indicator and consists of

a table for the evaluation on a four-grade scale for each assessment field, including grading

criteria

(apart from Qi0 which is pass/no-pass)

a short instruction for what material that should be provided to reviewers

a short instruction to the reviewers

review questions for each assessment field of the indicator.

17

Template M5/D5 addresses the final recommendation from the review team, which should be done from

a holistic view and therefor no sharp cut off values are provided and different assessment fields can be

given different weights.

Template M6/D6 is a final report with the review team’s suggestions about what they think needs to be

developed. This should be written regardless of the team’s suggestion on the label, and should be kept at

KIC level.

It is important for reviewers to be well informed about how EIT and its KICs use different terms and

concepts as described in this Handbook. The most convenient way is to read these parts while working

within the templates. It is equally important to realise that both the labelling and the review processes

are structured peer reviews, meaning that what should be reviewed is what is asked for in the templates

and nothing else. The EIT organises workshops in order to familiarise reviewers sufficiently with the EIT

QUALE Model and the labelling and reviewing processes of EIT-labelled masters and doctoral

programmes.

In case a KIC has locally added more than what is required by the QALE model (as an internal QA process),

this should not be part of the quality information that is included in the EIT labelling or review processes.

However, the assessments can be made at the same time and will then serve as a KIC-level assessment

for improvements.

Part 2 Terms and concepts

‘Quality’ in the context of the EIT educational agenda

What constitutes educational quality in higher education and how it should be measured is under

constant debate. In the EIT–KIC context quality means that students reach the Intended Learning

Outcomes (ILO) of a programme through aligned teaching, combined with fair and reliable grading, active

learning methods, and clear and helpful feedback in a rich and supportive learning environment. The EIT–

KIC definitions and the logic of these terms are presented in this section.

Teaching for the Knowledge Triangle in the EIT–KIC context

The Knowledge Triangle paradigm is most often presented as a theoretical concept and political marker

over the changes that are needed in Europe when it comes to improving the integration between

education, research and innovation/business. The EIT QALE model transforms it into a working model

with all three sides of the Knowledge Triangle taken into account. Through creating a simple enquiry-

based process around the three nodes of the Knowledge Trianglexx, questions are raised that should be

18

put by everyone when planning and performing all EIT education activities carried out throughout the

KICs:

What are the best ways of linking research to education and business?

What are the best ways of teaching for creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship?

How can optimal conditions be created so that students’ experiences from business can be used

in research and education?

These questions constitute the basis for the EIT QALE model.

Fig. 4 Teaching for Quality in the Knowledge Triangle

Learning outcomes in the EIT–KIC context

The EIT educational agenda as performed through the KICs recognises two types of learning outcomes:

intended learning outcomes (ILO)1 and achieved learning outcomes (ALO). Intended learning outcomes

are written statements in educational documents of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do

on completion of a learning process, which are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences.

Achieved learning outcomes are what students have attained during a study or learning process, shown in

1 In this text ‘intended learning outcomes’ and ‘learning outcomes’ will be used interchangeably, whereas ‘achieved learning outcomes’ will always be called ‘achieved learning outcomes’.

19

their individual responses to different types of exam tasks. They should clearly describe2 skills and

competences rather than just content in terms of knowledge.

Intended learning outcomes can apply to different levels, from the top level in qualification frameworks

as the Qualification Framework of European Higher Education Area (QF EHEA), the European Qualification

Framework (EQF), or the National Qualification Frameworks (NQF)xiii, down to the level of programmes,

modules and even tasks. At the top level they are identified as overarching learning outcomes (OLO) to

distinguish them from the specified intended learning outcomes at the module and task level.

Overarching and specified intended learning outcomes differ in that the former express competencies on

a general level, whereas the latter should always should be adequately specified to be used in a fit-for-

purpose assessment task.

The Bologna system levels (QF-EHEA and NQF) and the EQF (for professional modules) are the bases for

the EIT QALE model. In this model, the module-level intended learning outcomes are specified in relation

to (and later evaluated against) the overarching learning outcomes. This fits with the Bologna system as a

holistic system where all levels are integrated.

Knowledge forms in the EIT education agenda

Knowledge forms is a way of logically grouping overarching learning outcomes together. Higher education

has long focused more or less exclusively on ‘knowledge and understanding’. The Bologna process has

stressed and promoted other generic learning needs as transferable or transversal skills, competencies,

and attitudes, such as communication, making judgments and learning to learn. Ordering these into

knowledge forms is a way to highlight also these types of learning outcomes. Although the use of learning

outcomes clearly moves students’ learning from content knowledge to the use of this knowledge, they do

not, in fact, by themselves guarantee that. The explicit use of knowledge forms highlights this and is the

key to moving from content to competence-based education,xxi the latter of which integrates skills,

knowledge and attitudes.

Using knowledge forms is also an effective way of profiling certain educational programmes. Indeed, with

the EIT programmes, five out of the seven chosen knowledge forms (=OLOs 1-7) directly relate to the

Knowledge Triangle and clearly distinguish these programmes from others.

Defining the relationship between the objectives, syllabus, and intended

learning outcomes

In general, the objectives of a programme or module should in broad terms answer the question ‘what is

the purpose/rationale of a programme or module’. The ILOs should specify the knowledge, skills and

attitudes that an individual will be required to demonstrate in order to have completed the module or

program successfully. The relationship between objectives and the ILOs should be very close, where the

2 Using ‘action verbs’

20

intended learning outcomes are derived from the objectives. Syllabuses therefore describe the content

and the subject matter of a programme or module. In sum, the ILOs describe what students will be able

to do with the content in order to fulfil the objectives.xxii

Defining ‘high quality’ intended learning outcomes

All intended learning outcomes in EIT education activities as performed by the KICs should

be clearly written in order to be easily understood by the potential learner

outline the expected results of the learning

have a clear student-centred educational process

strongly and centrally emphasise competences, skills and impact in the learning content

clearly describe skills and competencies rather than just content knowledge. An example could

include the following description: ‘After the end of module… the student should be able to…’

For the specified intended learning outcomes at the module level we need to add how these are

assessed, that is how to use action verbs. As an example, it is not possible to assess a learner’s

‘understanding’, or their ‘awareness of’ or ‘familiarity with’ matters, whereas the ability to ‘define,

explain, calculate, differentiate, categorise, compare’ can be clearly demonstrated in an assessment task.

Defining the fit-for-purpose assessment

The assessment must concern the object under study, and the assessment method should always mirror

the competences that students are expected to be able to demonstrate. Assessment methods used by

the KICs must provide students with opportunities to give evidence of their competencies in creativity,

innovation, and entrepreneurship within the KIC thematic area. This calls for new ways compared to

traditional academic writing alone, especially in relation to thesis work.

In the context of the EIT educational activities as performed by the KICs, there is a different approach

between content-based, competence-based and impact-based assessments. Content-based assessment

refers to assessment tasks that mainly ask the learner about facts. Competence-based assessments refers

to assessment of intended learning outcomes that ask the learner to show ability to also use these facts.

Impact-based assessments take the assessment of competencies one step further and ask the learner to

use these competencies in a real-life situation to create a change or solve a challenge.

Recommendations for fair and reliable assessment

21

The EIT education activities should refer to a relevant grading system. When working with learning

outcomes, this naturally leads to a criterion-based system; in theory all students can achieve the ILOs of

the programme or module and should then be given a correct grading for this.

The foundation for a criterion-based system is a grading scale based on numbers (1, 2, 3, …), letters (A, B,

C, …) or labels (Pass, Pass with distinction, cum laude, ……) and of assessment criteria (grade

descriptorsxxiii), which describe to what extent the student has achieved the learning outcomes for each

level of the scale (see Annex 2 for examples related to the seven EIT OLOs).

A continuous dialogue between colleagues of the interpretations and use of these assessment criteria

enhances the reliability of the assessments noticeably. There are also studiesxxiv xxv xxvi that show that

training students in peer assessment and in applying assessment criteria to other students’ work

improves their own learning.

The EIT–KICs’ recommendations for active teaching and learning

Active learning is defined as the teaching method in which the students become involved in various

teaching activities but also are required to think about what they are doing. In other words, the teaching

activities should include both ‘doing’ and ‘thinking/reflecting about this doing’ (students should apply a

meta perspective to their own learning). This is important, as the quality of higher education quality does

not improve just because a few practical elements are added; what makes higher education different to

vocational training is that one also theorises and reflects about practical experiencexxvii. One difference

between skill and competence is that a skill can only be used in a particular context and nowhere else

(e.g. typing technique), whereas a competence can be thought of as the combination of knowledge and

skills; it is something that can be used in many different contexts. A competence allows individuals

flexibility in their choice of actions.

There is a lot of research to support the idea that active learning compared to more passive models

(listening, as in pure lecturing models) promotes learning.xxviii,xxix,xxx,xxxi The next step forward from the

learning outcome paradigm may well be to define a study unit rather by its learning enquiries or

challenges. However, active learning must not be equated with the total absence of lectures. Teachers

can activate students on a ‘small scale’ also during a lecture, for instance, by asking them to compare

their notes for a few minutes.

Aligned teaching and why the EIT endorses it

Higher education in Europe has been subject to considerable change within a short period. The Bologna

process has led to a radical shift in the approach to the quality of education, specifically by introducing

the learning outcome paradigm. The consequences are two clear shifts of perspective.xxxii The first

concerns a change in focus from the teachers’ activities to what the students do and should do (‘from

teacher-driven to student-centred’). The second concerns a change from planning the programme or

module ‘from beginning to end’, to a reversal of the process: 1) learning outcomes are defined first

(=ILO); followed by decisions on 2) fit-for-purpose assessment methods, 3) questions (=ALO), and finally

22

4) the teaching and learning activities and 5) materials that support learners’ efforts to achieve the ILOs

chosen. This is often referred to as ‘constructive alignment’,xxxiii ‘aligned teaching’ or sometimes as ‘the

learning chain’, and is an important and necessary step towards competence-based rather than just

content-based education.

Fig. 5 Aligned teaching: the linking between intended learning outcomes, assessment tasks, grading,

teaching and learning activities, and study resources.

Aligned teaching gives a clear logic and understanding of what students will be expected to do and be

able to achieve by the end of the study period subject to their own efforts. By explicitly linking the ILOs

with relevant assessment, the teacher also uses one of the strongest drivers of learning in the system –

students’ motivation to succeed with their exam tasks.

In addition to changing focus from the teacher to the student, and from the beginning to the end of the

learning period, aligned teaching also changes the focus in assessment from assessment solely of

learning, to assessment also for learning and maybe even assessment to learn. Finally, it shifts the

relationship between the teacher and the students, from teachers talking to students to teachers talking

and interacting with the students.

The definition of joint curriculum development

Joint curriculum development generally refers to collaboration between universities in different countries

and within specific disciplines, which has generated common education and training activities, generally

under the heading of joint study programmes. These are characterised by a common assumption of

responsibility by the participating institutions as regards the definition of the objectives of the

programme, the design of the curriculum, the organisation of the studies and the type of qualifications

awarded.

The objectives of a programme are jointly defined by partner institutions, with a view to giving graduates

an added value when they enter the European job market. This requires the identification of professional

23

profiles that will be needed, as well as a search for coherence between the objectives pursued and the

curriculum developed.

EIT takes one more step when it comes to joint curriculum development. Here it is also the collaboration

between academic and non-academic representatives (specifically, but not exclusively, from the KICs’

partners) that is of central interest. This can be done via advisory boards, committees and other types of

organisational solutions. A general observation is that the closer to the programmes this is done, the

more impact it will have. Best practise is for the KICs sign contracts with their partners on concrete

commitments in order to engage persons with the right experience, interest and time allocated for close

collaboration with programme coordinators and the teachers who are involved.

The definition of joint, double and multiple degrees?

Joint degree means a single diploma issued by at least two of the higher education institutions offering an

integrated programme and recognised officially in the countries where the degree-awarding institutions

are located.

Double or multiple degrees mean two or more national diplomas issued by two or more higher education

institutions and recognised officially in the countries where the degree-awarding institutions are located.

‘Research and development (R&D) projects on KIC educational activities’

in Quality indicator 3.4

The EIT and its KICs aim to create a footprint in European higher education through modernisation,

excellent use of aligned teaching, learning outcomes, and clear assessment criteria. The EIT education

agenda should be performed by the KICs with clear objectives, the right choice of methods, critical

reflection and the use of peer-review processes, just as research is done. To improve and share these

methods, the KICs are encouraged to run research and development projects on their work, specifically

aimed towards teaching for the Knowledge Triangle competences. These projects should result in robust

research that contributes significantly to teaching and learning knowledge in European higher education.

When carried out, these projects will be evaluated in assessment field 3.4 in the reviews.

Part 3 Templates This part contains all the self-assessment templates used in the labelling and reviewing processes. An

overview table comparing the self-assessment fields for EIT-labelled masters and doctoral programmes

can be found in Annex 6.

24

Templates for integrated and non-integrated masters programmes

Template M0a – Compulsory requirements for integrated masters programmes

The assessment fields for Quality indicator 0 are:

No Assessment field Evaluation

yes or no

0.1 university and non-academic partner curriculum collaboration

0.1.1 Are at least 2 partner universities engaged in the implementation of the programme? yes/no

0.1.2 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the development of the curriculum?

yes/no

0.1.3 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in teaching activities? yes/no

0.1.4 Do all students receive both academic and non-academic support on their mandatory thesis?

yes/no

0.2 ECTS and recognition

0.2.1 Does the programme cover at least 90 ECTS including EIT KIC added value? yes/no

0.2.2 Is a Diploma Supplement provided to each student? yes/no

0.2.3 Is the degree recognised in all the countries of the awarding universities? yes/no

0.3 application, selection and admission

0.3.1 Are special criteria for the assessment of the students’ entrepreneurial potential used

for selection purpose?

yes/no

0.3.2 Do the universities delivering the programme conduct the application, selection and

admission of students jointly?

yes/no

0.3.3 Is there a student tracking system? yes/no

0.3.4 N/A

0.3.5 Is there a KIC alumni organisation planned for the new programme (applicable for labelling)?

yes/no

0.3.6 Is there a KIC alumni organisation for graduates from the programme (applicable for

reviews)?

yes/no

0.4 EIT, KIC and academic context

0.4.1 Is the programme fully taught in English? yes/no

0.4.2 Is ‘EIT’ included in relation to the programme? yes/no

0.4.3 Is the EIT logo on the degree certificate, and/or on the DS, or will a separate

certificate be provided?

yes/no

0.4.4 N/A

0.4.5 N/A

0.4.6 N/A

0.4.7 Are the results of summative programme assessments produced by the students (such as reports, etc.) stored for later EIT review purposes?

yes/no

0.5 mobility

0.5.1 Does the mobility have a workload equivalent of 30 ECTS or more? yes/no

0.5.2 Does the international and the cross-organisational mobility each have a workload

Equivalent of at least 15 ECTS?

yes/no

25

Total go/ no go

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material to be provided and used for the review

The supporting documents that need to be provided for this quality indicator can vary according to the

programme. They may consist of module descriptions, project descriptions, websites, partner

agreements, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instruction for reviewers

This indicator differs from the other four quality indicators in the sense that all assessed criteria are

compulsory components of EIT-labelled degrees. The criteria are assessed on a yes/no scale and all

assessment fields need to be fulfilled in order to proceed with the review of the programme. Should this

not be the case, the review should be halted at this stage so that the programme owner can be

contacted.

Please choose only enough material for reviewers to make a sound evaluation.

26

Template M0b – Compulsory requirements for non-integrated masters programmes

The assessment fields for Quality indicator 0 are: No Assessment Field Evaluation

yes or no

0.1 University and non-academic partner curriculum collaboration

0.1.1 Are at least 2 partner universities engaged in the implementation of the add-on

module?

yes/no

0.1.2 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the development of the curriculum of the add-on module?

yes/no

0.1.3 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the teaching activities of the add-on module?

yes/no

0.1.4 Do all students receive both academic and non-academic support on their mandatory thesis of the non-integrated programme (coupling mechanism)?

yes/no


0.2.1 Does the host programme cover at least 90 ECTS and does the add-on module cover

at least 30 ECTS?

yes/no

0.2.2 Is a Diploma Supplement for the host programme provided to each student? yes/no

0.2.3 Is the degree of the host programme recognised in all the countries of the awarding universities?

yes/no

0.3 Application, selection and admission


for the selection purpose of the add-on module?

yes/no

0.3.2 Do the universities that deliver the host programme and the add-on module jointly conduct the application, selection and admission of students jointly?

yes/no

0.3.3 Is there a student tracking system for the host programme, the add-on module and the coupling mechanism?

yes/no

0.3.4 Are students enrolled on the add-on module via a regular university system? yes/no

0.3.5 Is there a KIC alumni organisation planned for the add-on module and the coupling mechanism (applicable for labelling)?

yes/no

0.3.6 Is there a KIC alumni organisation for graduates from the add-on module and the coupling mechanism (applicable for reviews)?

yes/no


0.4.1 Is the add-on module fully taught in English? yes/no

0.4.2 Is ‘EIT’ included in relation to the add-on module and the coupling mechanism? yes/no

0.4.3 Is the EIT logo on the degree certificate, and/or on the DS of the add-on module and the coupling mechanism, or will a separate certificate be provided?

yes/no

0.4.4 Is this add-on module part of a KIC university’s regular study offerings of 2nd or 3rd cycle levels?

yes/no

0.4.5 n/a

0.4.6 Does the host programme cover the EIT OLO 1 or OLO 2? yes/no

0.4.7 Are the results of summative add-on module and coupling mechanism assessments produced by the students (such as reports, etc.) stored for later EIT follow-up review purposes?

yes/no

27

0.5 Mobility

0.5.1 Does the mobility of the coupling programme have a workload of an equivalent of 30 ECTS or more?

yes/no

0.5.2 Is the mobility of the coupling programme composed of at least an equivalent of 15 ECTS for both international and for cross-organisational mobility?

yes/no

0.6 Coupling mechanisms between the original degree awarding master programme and the EIT Academic Module leading to the non-integrated EIT labelled programme

0.6.1 Is there a joint planning/governance between the original degree awarding Master Programmes and the EIT Academic Module leading to the non-integrated EIT labelled programme?

yes/no

0.6.2 Does the host programme master thesis fulfil at least EIT OLOs 1 and 2? yes/no

Total go/ no go

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of material to be provided and used for the review

The supporting documents that need to be provided for this quality indicator can vary according to the

programme. They may consist of module descriptions, project descriptions, websites, partner agreements

etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



compulsory components of EIT-labelled degrees. Criteria are assessed on a yes/no scale and all


not be the case, the review should end here so that the programme owner can be contacted.

28

Template M1 – Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage of integrated and non-

integrated masters programmes

The assessment fields for Quality indicator 1 are: No Assessment Field Points*

1.1 EIT overarching learning outcome coverage

1.2 General quality of intended learning outcomes

1.3 Fit-for-purpose assessment

1.4 Availability and format of grading system and assessment criteria (grade descriptors)

1.5 Activating and appropriate learning methods

Total

* 1 Does not meet the minimum criteria = Mainly ‘NO’ answers to the main part of criteria

2 Meets the minimum criteria but still needs improvement = the criteria are partially met, some ‘NO’ answers are present

3 Good = Answers to the main part of the criteria are ‘YES’

4 Excellent = All ‘YES’ answers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment field 1.1 EIT Overarching Learning Outcome coverage

1.1.1 (EIT OLO 1): Is ‘the ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans

and decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to

merge this into a solution-focused approach, moving towards a sustainable society’ specified

sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E module and the

coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.2 (EIT OLO 2): Is ‘the ability to transform innovations into feasible business solutions’

specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E module

and the coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.3 (EIT OLO 3): Is ‘the ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and

generate new ideas’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.4 (EIT OLO 4): Is ‘the ability to use knowledge, ideas or technologies to create new or

significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, new business models or jobs’

specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.5 (EIT OLO 5): Is ‘the ability to use cutting-edge research methods, processes and techniques

towards new venture creation and growth and to apply these also in cross-disciplinary teams

and contexts’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.6 (EIT OLO 6): Is ‘the ability to transform practical experiences into research problems and

challenges’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

1.1.7 (EIT OLO 7): Is ‘the ability of decision-making and leadership, based on a holistic

understanding of the contributions of higher education, research and business to value creation,

29

in limited sized teams and contexts’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the programme (coupling

mechanisms)?

1.1.8 Do a sufficient number of courses in the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E

module and the coupling mechanisms) deal with relevant content for the thematic field of the

KIC?

Assessment field 1.2 General quality of intended learning outcomes

1.2.1 Are the intended learning outcomes of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E

module and the coupling mechanisms) assessable, that is, with clear descriptions of skills and

competencies rather than just content knowledge?

1.2.2. Are the intended learning outcomes of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E

module and the coupling mechanisms) on the right academic level?

Assessment field 1.3 Fit-for-Purpose assessment

1.3.1 Are the assessment tasks of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E module and

the coupling mechanisms) given to the students fit for purpose in relation to content?

1.3.2 Are the assessment tasks of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E module and

the coupling mechanisms) given to the students fit for purpose in relation to form (i.e. content-,

competence-, or impact-based, depending on the ILO)?

Assessment field 1.4 Availability and format of grading system and assessment criteria (grade descriptors)

1.4.1 Are rules and regulations for assessing and grading of the programme (host programme,

the add-on I&E module and the coupling mechanisms) available to students in advance?

1.4.2 Are assessment criteria (grade descriptors) used when assessing and grading student work

from the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E module and the coupling mechanisms)?

Assessment field 1.5 Activating and appropriate learning methods

1.5.1 Are teaching and learning methods of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E

module and the coupling mechanisms) designed to activate the students?

1.5.2 Are teaching and learning methods of the programme (host programme, the add-on I&E

module and the coupling mechanisms) appropriate for achieving the intended learning

outcomes?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of material to be provided in the self-assessment reports

A full description of the programme with all the possible student study tracks is clearly indicated.

A list of all compulsory modules that are included in the programme/course.

30

1.1 and 1.2 A Coverage table where module ILOs are mapped against the 7 EIT OLOs from a

sufficient number of modules to mirror the whole programme (with examples from all

universities involved in the programme) + the official module descriptions.

1.3 Example documents of tasks that are used to assess (summative assessment) the students

on the modules used for 1.1 and 1.2

1.3 Information about the proportion between individual and group assessment of the whole

programme

1.4.1 Official documents describing rules and regulations for assessment and grading on the

modules used for 1.1 and 1.2

1.4.2 Document with specified assessment criteria (grade descriptors) that are applied when

grading student work from the modules used for 1.1 and 1.2. Examples are shown in Annex 2

‘Examples for EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work’.

1.5.1 Detailed descriptions on teaching and learning methods on the modules used for 1.1 and

1.2

Any other documents that you find that give evidence of the assessment fields of the indicator

An Annex where all the attached supporting documents for this quality indicator are listed and

clearly named in a systematic manner, for easy access by the reviewers (please favour pdf

documents and avoid web links if possible).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Grade each assessment field on a four-grade scale in the table above.

As guidelines for your evaluation use the ‘EIT overarching learning outcomes’ and Annex 2

‘Examples for EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work’ in addition

to the explanations of terms and concepts in this document.

Please note that different universities within the same programme may show different quality

on the same assessment field. Your grading should be a full evaluation on the programme as a

whole. The review focus is primarily on KIC added value.

Please avoid giving information about anything else than the assessment fields that are listed.

31

Template M2 – The EIT learning environment and facilities of integrated and non-

integrated masters programmes

The assessment fields for Quality Indicator 2 are:

No Assessment Field Points*

2.1 Robust entrepreneurship education

2.2 Highly integrated, appropriate ‘learning-by-doing’ curricula

2.3 Mobility, the European dimension and openness to the World

Total





Assessment field 2.1 Robust entrepreneurship education

2.1.1 Are students of the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) actively

offered the KICs or university-based innovation ecosystem, including technical, financial and

human services and means (e.g. incubators, mentoring and coaching, by business developers,

seed funding etc.) to develop their entrepreneurial skills and competencies and to test out the

commercial potential and viability of their ideas/learning/research outcomes?

2.1.2 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in curriculum development of the

programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms)?

2.1.3 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in the teaching activities of the

programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms)?

2.1.4 Do all students of the programme (coupling mechanisms) receive joint academic/non-

academic supervision in their theses work?

2.1.5 Does the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) sufficiently promote

students’ non-academic professional networks?

2.1.6 not applicable to masters programmes

Assessment field 2.2 Highly integrated, appropriate ‘learning-by-doing’ curricula

2.2.1 Does the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) provide sufficient

opportunities for on-the-job learning, exposing students to the reality of professional life outside

university?

2.2.2 Does the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) bring together

science/technology with broad societal and global challenges?

32

2.2.3 Does the programme (coupling mechanisms) have a transdisciplinary approach?

Assessment field 2.3 Mobility, the European dimension and openness to the world

2.3.1 Is the international mobility organised so that it sufficiently supports students achieving the

intended learning outcomes of the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

2.3.2 Is the academic and non-academic mobility organised so that it sufficiently supports

students achieving the intended learning outcomes of the programme (add-on I&E module and


2.3.3 Does the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) have a well-balanced

recruitment of European vs. non-European students?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The supporting documents which need to be provided for this quality indicator can vary according to the

programme. They may consist of module descriptions, project descriptions, websites, partner

agreements, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Grade each assessment field on the four-grade scale in the table above.





33

Template M3 – The results of integrated and non-integrated masters programmes


No. Assessment Field Points*

3.1 Students’ entrepreneurship competencies

3.2 Achieved learning outcomes

3.3 Retention rates

3.4 Research and development activities projects on KIC educational activities

Total





Assessment field 3.1 Students’ entrepreneurship competencies

3.1.1 Does the programme (add-on I&E module) foster entrepreneurship competencies?

Assessment field 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes

3.2.1 Does the sample from the programme (coupling mechanisms) self-evaluation demonstrate

that the students have achieved all EIT OLOs?

Assessment field 3.3 Retention rates

3.3.1 Does the programme (add-on I&E module) have a 90% or higher retention3 rate?

3.3.2 Does the programme (add-on I&E module) provide a satisfactory analysis in the case of

retention rates lower than 90%?

Assessment field 3.4 Research and development activities and projects on KIC educational activities

3.4.1 Have there been any R&D activities related to the programme (respectively add-on I&E

module and coupling mechanisms)?

3.4.2 If yes on 3.4.1, have these led to new knowledge about what developments in the

programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) are needed, alternatively of ‘what

works in this context’?

3.4.3 If yes on 3.4.1: Have they led to knowledge-based decisions on what to keep or what to

change in the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3 Meaning the number of admitted students completing the full programme

34

3.1 Optimally a standardised test has been used as a selection tool at student intake to the

programme (see Qi 0.3.1), where the change scores (difference between intake group scores

and group scores by the end of the last semester) are provided as evidence in this assessment

field.

3.2 A selection of student work (e.g., masters theses, I&E theses, summer school deliverables,

business development lab deliverables etc.) either as hard copies or other type of access. The

selection should:

o Randomly cover 30% of the students per student cohort (that is 10 individual

students should be represented from a cohort of 30 students, but their products

may come from any of the four semesters)

o Give examples of what is considered lowest, medium and highest quality

o Please note that group works also are fully acceptable.

3.3 Retention rates together with a short analysis of student retention

3.4 Reports in the form of published articles, reports, conference presentations etc. of

educational R&D projects and examples that give evidence to 3.4.2 and 3.4.3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For reviewing 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes: please note that all student products have

already been assessed according to each university’s rules and assessment criteria and hence

should not be assessed again here, the review focus is primarily on EIT KIC added value.


on the same assessment field. Your grading should be a holistic evaluation on the programme as

a whole. The review focus is primarily on KIC added value.

For reviewing non-integrated programmes, please note that the theses from the coupling

mechanisms are one of the most important pieces of evidence to ensure the EIT profile in the

form of (at least) EIT OLOs 1 and 2.


35

Template M4 – Stakeholder experiences of integrated and non-integrated master

programmes



4.1 Student experiences

4.2 Alumni experiences

4.3 Other stakeholder experiences

Total





Assessment field 4.1 Student experiences

4.1.1 Are students given the opportunity to express their views of the full programme (host

programme, add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) on a regular basis in the form of

surveys, focus groups, etc.?

4.1.2 Are questions (regarding the add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) included that

are directly focused on the EIT profile; EIT OLOs, learning-by-doing, clear connections with non-

academic contexts, etc.?

4.1.3 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups, etc. satisfactory?

Assessment field 4.2 Alumni experiences

4.2.1 Are alumni given the opportunity to express their views of the full programme (add-on I&E

module and coupling mechanisms) on a regular basis in the form of surveys, focus groups, etc.?

4.2.2 Are questions included about positive career changes (advancements, job changes, etc.)

related to graduating from the full programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms)?

4.2.3 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups, etc., satisfactory?

Assessment field 4.3 Other stakeholder experiences

4.3.1 Are other stakeholders (labour market, policy makers, etc.) given the opportunity to

express their views of the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) on a

regular basis in the form of surveys, focus groups, etc.?

4.3.2 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups, etc., satisfactory?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Material to be provided and used for the review

36

Describe the methods (surveys, focus groups, etc.) you use for gathering experiences and

opinions from students, alumni and other stakeholders. (Other stakeholders can be employers,

non-academic partners, innovation and entrepreneurship support actors, policy makers, etc.)

In the Annexes, present the latest results of these inquiries for the three groups.

Please avoid giving information about anything other than the assessment fields that are listed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instruction for reviewers



on the same assessment field. Your grading should be a holistic evaluation on the

programme/course as a whole. The review focus is primarily on KIC added value.

37

Template M5 – Recommendations by the review team


The final evaluation and suggestion for awarding/renewing the EIT label builds on a consensus (not a

simple arithmetic average) score of indicators 1-2 and 1-4 respectively; however, the evaluation should

be made from a holistic view without sharp cut of values; different assessment fields can be allocated

different weights.

Should the review team not recommend the EIT Label, the arguments for this should be specified.

Should the review team not agree on a specific recommendation, the chair of the review team makes the

final decision. This situation should be stated clearly and the arguments for the disagreement should be

specified.

Awarding the EIT Label

No. Indicator Points*

1 Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage

Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage 2 EIT learning environment and facilities

2 EIT learning environment and facilities

Total:





Renewal of the EIT Label




3 Results

4 Stakeholder experiences

Total:





38

Summary quality information for integrated and non-integrated masters programmes

Awarding the EIT Label Renewal of EIT Label (4 years and/or programme has produced two cohorts of

graduates)

Yes No Yes No

Integrated and non-integrated

masters programme

The recommendation is based on the following points on each assessment field. This information also

provides the basis for quality profiles and is made public on the EIT official website.

Quality indicator 1 Aligned teaching and EIT overarching learning outcome coverage.


1.1 Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage





Total:

Quality indicator 2 EIT Learning environment and facilities.




2.3 Mobility, European dimension and openness to the world

Total:

Quality indicator 3 Results.

No. Assessment Area Points*



3.3 Retention rates

3.4 Research and development projects on KIC educational activities

Total:

39

Quality indicator 4 Stakeholder experiences.





Total:

Date:

Name of Chair of review team:

Names of review team members:

Main arguments if review team does not agree:

40

Template M6 – Suggestions from the review team


When writing suggestions for assessment fields that need developing (which can be made regardless of

recommendation) please do not exceed 2000 words and consider using bullet points. Please qualify your

statements, preferably with some examples.

This report should be kept only at KIC level.

Suggestions

Date, Name of Chair of review team, Signature

41

Templates for doctoral programmes

Template D0 – Compulsory requirements


No Assessment Field Evaluation

yes or no


0.1.1 Are at least 2 partner universities engaged in the implementation of the programme? yes/no

0.1.2 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the development of the

curriculum?

yes/no

0.1.3 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the teaching activities? yes/no

0.1.4 Do doctoral candidates receive both academic and non-academic support for their

mandatory thesis?

yes/no


0.2.1 Does the length of the programme comply with Salzburg II Recommendations (three

to four years’ full time equivalent) for doctoral programmes, including KIC added

value?

yes/no

0.2.2 Is a Diploma Supplement for the programme provided to each doctoral candidate? yes/no/n.a.

0.2.3 Is the degree of the programme recognised in the countries of the awarding

universities?

yes/no


0.3.1 Are special criteria for the assessment of the doctoral candidates’ entrepreneurial

potential used for selection purpose?

yes/no

0.3.2 Do the universities delivering the programme conduct the application, selection and admission of doctoral candidates jointly?

yes/no

0.3.3 Is there a doctoral candidates tracking system? yes/no

0.3.4 n/a

0.3.5 Is there a KIC alumni organisation planned for the new programme (applicable for

labelling)?

yes/no

0.3.6 Is there a KIC alumni organisation for graduates from the programme (applicable for

review)?

yes/no


0.4.1 Is the programme fully taught in English? yes/no

0.4.2 Is ‘EIT’ included in relation the programme? yes/no

0.4.3 Is the EIT logo on the degree certificate or will a separate certificate be provided? yes/no

0.4.4 n/a

0.4.5 n/a

0.4.6 n/a

0.4.7 Are the results of summative programme assessments produced by the doctoral candidates (such as reports, etc.) stored for later EIT follow-up review purposes?

yes/no

0.5 Mobility

0.5.1 Does the mobility have a workload of an equivalent of 30 ECTS or more? yes/no

42

0.5.2 Is the mobility composed of at least an equivalent of 15 ECTS for both international and for cross-organisational mobility?

yes/no

0.6 n/a

Total go/no go



compulsory components of EIT-labelled degrees. Criteria are assessed on a yes/no scale and all


not be the case, the review should halt here and the programme owner contacted.

43

Template D1–EIT overarching learning outcomes coverage

The assessment fields for Quality indicator 1 are: No. Assessment Field Points*


1.1.1 Making value judgments and sustainability skills/competencies

1.1.2 Entrepreneurship skills/competencies

1.1.3 Creativity skills/competencies

1.1.4 Innovation skills/competencies

1.1.5 Research skills/competencies

1.1.6 Intellectual transforming skills/competencies

1.1.7 Leadership skills/competencies

1.1.8 Relevance of PhD thesis for the thematic field for the KIC

Total





Assessment fields 1.1 EIT overarching learning outcomes coverage

Does the doctoral work plan template sufficiently cover and address how the candidate will develop:

— 1.1.1 EIT OLO 1: The ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans and

decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge

this into their professional activities, moving towards a sustainable society.

— 1.1.2 EIT OLO 2: The ability to translate innovations into feasible business solutions and to lead

and support others in this process.

— 1.1.3 EIT OLO 3: The ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and

generate new ideas and to inspire and support others in this process and contribute to the

further development of those ideas.

— 1.1.4 EIT OLO 4: The ability to apply their research experiences combined with the knowledge,

ideas and technology of others to create, test and implement new or significantly improved

products, services, processes, policies, new business models or jobs.

— 1.1.5 EIT OLO 5: The ability to produce cutting-edge original research and to extend and

develop cutting-edge research methods, processes and techniques towards new venture

creation and growth also using cross-disciplinary approaches.

— 1.1.6 EIT OLO 6: The ability to autonomously and systematically transform practical experiences

into research problems and challenges and to lead and support others in this process.

— 1.1.7 EIT OLO 7: The ability of decision-making and leadership based on a holistic understanding

of the contributions of higher education, research and business to value creation.

44

— 1.1.8 Does the PhD thesis deal with relevant content for the thematic field for the KIC?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example material to be provided and used for the review

The Doctoral Work Plan template. If different universities at the KIC use different templates, all templates

should be provided.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



— As guidelines for your evaluation, use the ‘EIT overarching learning outcomes’ in addition to

explanations of terms and concepts in this document.

— Please note that different universities within the same programme may show different quality




45

Template D2 – The EIT learning environment and facilities

The assessment fields for Quality indicator 2 are: No. Assessment Field Points*




Total:






— 2.1.1 Are doctoral candidates actively offered the KICs or university-based innovation ecosystem,

including technical, financial and human services and means (e.g. incubators, mentoring and

coaching, by business developers, seed funding etc.) to develop their entrepreneurial skills and

competencies and to test out the commercial potential and viability of their

ideas/learning/research outcomes?

— 2.1.2 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in curriculum development?

— 2.1.3 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in teaching activities?

— 2.1.4: Do doctoral candidates receive joint academic/non-academic mentoring and supervision

in their theses work?

— 2.1.5 Does the programme promote the doctoral candidates’ non-academic networks

sufficiently?

— 2.1.6 Are doctoral candidates offered leadership training focused on the Knowledge Triangle for

value creation?


— 2.2.1 Are doctoral candidates provided with sufficient opportunities for on-the-job learning,

exposing them to the reality of professional life outside university?

— 2.2.2 Has the programme adopted a strong trans-disciplinary approach to address broad societal

challenges and link up with new business and innovation processes?

— 2.2.3 Are doctoral candidates performing an internship outside university of a minimum of an

equivalent of 30 ECTS?

46

Assessment field 2.3 Mobility, European dimension and openness to the world

— 2.3.1 Is international mobility organised so that it sufficiently supports the doctoral candidates

achieving the intended learning outcomes of the studies?

— 2.3.2 Is the academic and non-academic mobility organised so that it sufficiently supports

doctoral candidates achieving the intended learning outcomes of the studies?

— 2.3.3 Does the programme have a well-balanced recruitment of European vs. non-European

doctoral candidates?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The supporting documents which need to be provided for this quality indicator can vary according to the

programme. They may consist of module descriptions, project descriptions, websites, partner agreements

etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Grade each assessment field on the four-grade scale in the table above.





47

Template D3 – The results



3.1 Doctoral candidates’ entrepreneurship competencies


3.3 Retention rates


Total:





Assessment area 3.1 Candidates’ entrepreneurship competencies

— 3.1.1 Does the programme foster entrepreneurship competencies?

Assessment area 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes

— 3.2.1 Does the sample from the programme self-evaluation demonstrate that the doctoral

candidates have achieved all EIT OLOs?

Assessment area 3.3 Retention rates

— 3.3.1 Does the programme have a 90% or higher retention rate?

— 3.3.2 Does the programme provide a satisfactory analysis in the case of retention rates lower

than 90%?

Assessment area 3.4 Research and development projects on KIC educational activities

— 3.4.1 Have there been any R&D activities related to the programme?

— 3.4.2 If yes on 3.4.1, have these led to new knowledge about what developments in the

programme are needed, alternatively of ‘what works’?

— 3.4.3 If yes on 3.4.1, have these decisions led to knowledge-based decisions on what to keep or

what to change in the programme?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


— 3.1 Optimally a standardised test has been used as a selection tool at student intake to the

programme (see Qi 0.3.1), where the change scores (difference between intake group scores

48

and group scores by the end of the last semester) are provided as evidence for this assessment

field.

— 3.2 A selection of candidates' work (e.g., theses, journals, papers, patents, reports, conference

presentations, products etc.) either as hard copies or other type of access.

This selection should:

cover 30% of the candidates per cohort (that is 10 individual candidates should be

represented from a cohort of 30, but their products may come from any semester of

the programme)

give examples of what is considered lowest, medium and highest quality.

— 3.3 Retention rates.

— 3.4 Reports on educational R&D projects and examples that give evidence to 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


— Grade each assessment field on a four-grade scale in the table above.

— For reviewing 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes: Please note that all candidate products have

already been assessed according to each university’s rules and criteria and hence should not be

assessed again here, the review focus is primarily on KIC added value.

— Please note that different universities within the same program may show different quality on

the same assessment field. Your grading should be a holistic evaluation on the program as a

whole.


49

Template D4 – Stakeholder experiences



4.1 Doctoral candidate experiences



Total:





Assessment field 4.1 Doctoral candidate experiences

— 4.1.1 Does the programme give doctoral candidates the opportunity to express their views of

the programme on a regular basis in the form of surveys, focus groups, etc.?

— 4.1.2 Are questions included that are directly focused on the EIT profile; EIT OLOs, learning by

doing, s clear connection with non-academic contexts, etc.?

— 4.1.3 Are the results from these surveys, focus groups, etc. satisfactory?


— 4.2.1 Are alumni given the opportunity to express their views of the programme on a regular

basis in the form of surveys, focus groups, etc.?

— 4.2.2 Are questions included about positive career changes related to graduating from the

programme (advancements, job changes, etc.)?

— 4.2.3 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups, etc. satisfactory?


— 4.3.1 Are other stakeholders (labour market, policy makers, etc.) given the opportunity to

express their views of the programme on a regular basis in the form of surveys, focus groups,

etc.?

— 4.3.2 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups, etc. satisfactory?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material to be provided and used for the review

50

— Describe the methods you use for gathering experiences and opinions from doctoral candidates,

alumni and other stakeholders. (Other stakeholders can be employers, non-academic partners,

innovation and/or entrepreneurship support actors, policy makers, etc.)

— Present in annexes the last results of the doctoral candidates’ surveys and inquiries with alumni

and other stakeholders you have (surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




on the same assessment field.

— Your grading should be a holistic evaluation on the programme as a whole. The review focus is

primarily on KIC added value.


51

Template D5 – Recommendations by the review team


The final evaluation and suggestion for awarding/renewing the EIT label builds on a consensus (not a

simple arithmetic average) score of indicators 1-2 and 1-4 respectively, however the evaluation should

be made from a holistic view without sharp cut off values; different assessment fields can be allocated

different weights.

Should the review team not recommend the EIT Label, the arguments for this should be specified.

Should the review team not agree on a specific recommendation, the chair of the review team makes

the final decision. This situation should be stated clearly and the arguments for the disagreement

should be specified.

Awarding the EIT Label



Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage 2 EIT learning environment and facilities


Total:





Renewal of the EIT Label




3 Results

4 Stakeholder experiences

Total:





52

Summary of quality information for doctoral programmes

Awarding the EIT Label Renewal of EIT Label (5 years and/or programme has produced two cohorts of

graduates)

Yes No Yes No

Doctoral Programme

The recommendation is based on the following points on each assessment field. This information also

provides the basis for quality profiles and is made public on the EIT official website.

Quality indicator 1 Aligned teaching and EIT overarching learning outcome coverage.



Total:

Quality indicator 2 EIT Learning environment and facilities.





Total:

Quality indicator 3 Results.

No. Assessment Area Points*



3.3 Retention rates


Total:

Quality indicator 4 Stakeholder experiences.



53



Total:

Date:

Name of Chair of review team:

Names of review team members:

Main arguments if review team does not agree:

54

Template D6 – Suggestions from the review team


When writing suggestions for assessment fields that need developing (which can be made regardless of

recommendation) please do not exceed 2000 words and consider using bullet points. Please qualify your

statements, preferably with some examples.

This report should be kept only at KIC level.

Suggestions

Date, Name of Chair of review team, Signature

55

Annexes Annex 1: Common format for Diploma Supplements for EIT-labelled degrees

Annex 2: Examples of the EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work

Annex 3: Awarding and renewing the EIT Label: responsibilities of the parties

Annex 4: Templates for academic modules

Annex 5: Overview of the EIT overarching learning outcomes for EIT-labelled masters and

doctoral programmes

Annex 6: Overview of the assessment fields for EIT labelled integrated and non-integrated

masters and doctoral programmes

Annex 7: Overview evaluation objects within the EIT labelling system

56

Annex 1 Common format for Diploma Supplements for EIT-labelled

degrees

As the EIT is an EU body, EIT-labelled degrees should fully align with the ‘acquis’ of the European Higher

Education Area and give proof of correct implementation of transparency tools, like the Diploma

Supplement (DS), ECTS, and the European Qualifications Framework.

This implies that the DS template for EIT degrees should not be reinvented but that it should be followed

section by section, and that the EIT-labelled degree-awarding universities will have to follow the

instructions as set out by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO on the format of

the DS. This information can be consulted at the DS page of DG EAC:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/doc/ds_en.pdf

Of particular relevance are the Explanatory Notes in Section 2 of the aforementioned document, which

provide detailed information and guidance on how to fill out the different sections of the DS template.

In addition, the DS accompanying the EIT-labelled degrees will give particular attention to the following

sections of the DS template:

2.3. Name and status of the awarding institution. According to the EIT Regulation, only higher education

institutions can award the degrees.

3.2. Official length of the programme. Here a reference to ECTS is mandatory for masters courses and

where applicable, recommendable for (part of) the PhD programmes. Please note that ECTS (credits)

should be attributed to the programmes with full respect of the ECTS key features as adopted by the

European Commission and the Member States. Reference: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-

learning-policy/doc48_en.htm

3.3. Access requirements. Apart from the general access conditions (bachelor’s or master’s degree), the

selection procedure with details on the criteria for selection (e.g. academic excellence, entrepreneurial

potential, etc.) will be mentioned.

4.1. Mode of the programme. In this section it can be mentioned that mobility, both geographical and

between academia and business is mandatory.

4.3. Programme details. Learning outcomes of each programme should be spelled out in detail (if

necessary in an annex). Please start the description of the specific learning outcomes for the programme

with a reference to the generic learning outcomes for the second or the third cycle as spelled out in the

overarching Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area or level 7 and 8 of the

European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (see Annex 2 on the EQF recommendation:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LeUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0001:0007:EN:P DFx).

6.1. Additional information. Here the following text on EIT-labelled degrees in general can be inserted:

57

'EIT-labelled Master’s/PhD degree programmes are offered by research universities in cooperation with

research institutes and innovative businesses, which form the EIT Knowledge and Innovation

Communities (KICs). Each KIC addresses a particular global challenge by integrating higher education,

research and innovation.

The EIT-labelled Master’s/PhD in … is organised in the context of [KIC Name]. EIT-labelled degrees build

on the experience gained in the context of other EU actions and are in line with the main achievements of

the European Higher Education Area (Bologna Process), in particular in the field of Quality Assurance

(European Standards and Guidelines) and recognition tools, like the European Qualifications Framework,

ECTS and the Diploma Supplement.

EIT curricula that are moreover specifically geared to innovation and creativity follow an entrepreneurial

approach and have a developed international outreach strategy. They aim at translating state-of-the-art

research into new services and products. Students work in trans-disciplinary multicultural teams coached

in an interactive way by academics as well as practitioners. International mobility and placements in

industry and business are an essential part of the curriculum. EIT degrees follow quality criteria to

encompass the specific features of the EIT curricula.

7.4. Official seal or stamp. Apart from the seals of the awarding universities, the EIT logo will always

appear. The logo of the KIC concerned may figure also, but this is not mandatory.

DS and ECTS labels

EIT degrees could apply for the DS and ECTS labels at the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive

Agency (EACEA) respectively to make their good practice more visible to a wider public. More information

can be found at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/erasmus/erasmus_ects_ds_en.php

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/erasmus/erasmus_ects_ds_en.php

58

Annex 2 Examples of the EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors)

for assessing student work

Examples

These assessment criteria can be used by review teams when reviewing Indicator 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes, but this is purely optional. Please note that:

— These grading criteria/rubrics should be used as guidelines, they are not formally decided

anywhere.

— When assessing theses (Qi 3.2) these are also subject to a traditional academic assessment

according to each university’s rules and criteria. In the EIT reviews these should only be assessed

in relation to the EIT OLOs.

— They can also be used (or be adapted) by teachers when assessing all types of student products

throughout the EIT educational activities.

Table of Examples for grading

EIT OLO 1: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of

plans and decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge this

into a solution-focused approach.’? (Making value and sustainability judgments)

Grades indicate that the work shows that the student has/has not the ability to:

4 Relate the value proposed in his project/study/activity to all relevant stakeholders including producers, customers, shareholders, communities, ecological systems and policies as appropriate.

3 Relate the value proposed in his project/study/activity to several relevant stakeholders including producers, customers, shareholders, communities, ecological systems or policies as appropriate.

2 Show awareness of the relation of value to producers, customers, shareholders, communities, ecological systems and policies.

1 Show only limited awareness of the relation of value to producers, customers, shareholders, communities, ecological systems, policies.

0 No evidence of the OLO shown

EIT OLO 2: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to translate innovations into feasible business

solutions’? (Entrepreneurship skills and competences)


4 Systematically uses analytical business skills to recognise, assess and/or develop business opportunities in relation to all dimensions covered in his project/study/activity: market, customers, competition, and environment, human, and material and technical resources.

59

3 Systematically uses analytical business skills to recognise, assess and/or develop business opportunities in relation to several dimensions covered in his project/study/activity: market, customers, competition, environment, human resources and material and technical resources.

2 Uses limited analytical business skills to recognise, assess and/or develop business opportunities in relation to some dimensions covered in his project/study/activity: market, customers, competition, environment, human resources or material and technical resources.

1 Shows limited awareness of the role of analytical business skills to recognise, assess and/or develop business opportunities in relation to the market, customers, competition, the environment, human resources or material and technical resources.

0 No evidence of the OLO shown

EIT OLO 3: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore

and generate new ideas’? (Creativity skills and competences)


4 Invent or find solutions to address and solve his/her project’s main challenges (customer problem, functionality, business model, development, etc.).

3 Invent or find solutions to address and solve some of his project’s challenges (customer problem, functionality, business model, development,…).

2 Combine a collection of available ideas to address and solve part of his project challenges (customer

problem, functionality, business model, development, etc.). 1 Reformulate and apply available ideas to address and solve some of his project challenges (customer

problem, functionality, business model, development, etc.).

0 No evidence of the OLO shown.

EIT OLO 4: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to use knowledge, ideas and technology to create new or

significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, business models or jobs’? (Innovation skills and

competences)


4 Create new products, services, processes, policies or entirely new business models. The product or service does not exist in the market.

3 Create significantly new products, services, processes, policies or significantly new business models. The

product or service already exists in the market but the student proposes significant improvements with an expected large impact at the international level.

2 Create improved products, services, processes, policies or new business models. The product or service already exists in the market but the student proposes some improvements with an expected moderate impact in a limited environment.

1 Doesn’t propose new or improved products, services, processes, policies or new business models, but recognises existing connections among ideas or technologies and innovative solutions.

60


EIT OLO 5: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to use cutting-edge research methods, processes and

techniques towards new venture creation and growth and to apply these also in cross-disciplinary teams and

contexts’? (Research skills and competences)


4 Apply appropriate research methods throughout the project.

3 Apply appropriate research methods in parts of the project work.

2 Show evidence of understanding some research methods in the field of his project work.

1 Show very limited evidence of knowing and understanding research methods in the field of his project work.


EIT OLO 6: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability to transform practical experiences into research problems and challenges’? (Intellectual transforming skills and competences)

Grades indicate that the work demonstrates the ability of the student

4 The work is clearly focused and grounded in the information gathered on real life situations and/or student’s own experiences about needs to be covered and/or problems to be solved. Makes proposals on how results could improve things.

3 The work shows understanding of real-life problems related to the research field and results, and makes proposals on how results could improve things.

2 The work shows understanding of real-life problems related to the research field and results.

1 The work shows limited understanding of real-life problems related to the research field and results.


EIT OLO 7: Does the work show the student’s ‘ability of decision-making and leadership, based on a holistic

understanding of the contributions of Higher Education, research and business to value creation, in limited

sized teams and contexts’? (Leadership skills and competences)

Grades indicate that the work demonstrates the ability of the student

4 Description of the decision-making is detailed, objective and provides for the reader evidence of not only how leadership practice could be applied but also that it has depth and is grounded in higher education research, business and value creation.

3 There is proof of clear and deep understanding of decision-making in either higher education, business or value creation.

61

2 The work shows an understanding of decision-making in either higher education, business or value Creation.

1 There is some evidence of a decision making system in the OLO.


Example of Assessment sheet for whole samples of student products per programme

For review purposes Indicator 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes:

Student

Product No

GRADE 4

Exemplary

range and

depth of

attainment of

the EIT OLOs

GRADE 3

Clear

Attainment

of most of the

EIT OLOs

GRADE 2

Acceptable

attainment of

most of the

EIT OLOs

GRADE 1

Deficient

attainment of

many of the

EIT OLOs

GRADE 0

No evidence

of the EIT

OLOs shown

1

2

3

…

n

For review purposes Indicator 3.2 Achieved Learning Outcomes:

After assessing all student products in the samples please make a holistic assessment of Indicator 3.2, on

the EIT grading scale of the whole sample per programme:

Programme GRADE 4

The assessment

field 3.2 is

excellent

GRADE 3

The assessment

field 3.2 is good

GRADE 2

The assessment Field

3.2 meets the

minimum criteria but

still needs

improvement

GRADE 1

The assessment field

3.2 does not meet the

minimum criteria

Product 1

etc.

62

Annex 3 Awarding and renewing the EIT Label: responsibilities of

the parties

— Masters and doctoral programmes included in the KICs annual business plans are eligible to be

submitted for evaluation for the EIT Label. It is expected that programmes that already have the

EIT Label will be submitted for renewal in the evaluation round preceding the last year of the

validity period of the EIT Label award.

— All EIT Label applications should be submitted by KIC partners.

— Every EIT Label application must include a self-evaluation report for the submitted programme,

produced by the applicant KIC partner, in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the EIT

Label Handbook and the provisions foreseen in the EIT Label Framework that sets the general

guidelines.

— As foreseen in the EIT Label Framework, the EIT manages the pools of experts that are assigned

to review the applications and the self-evaluations for the award of the EIT Label.

— In justified cases the EIT Director, following consultation with the KICs, has the right to prolong

the duration of the EIT Label for particular programmes(s) until the process of reviewing the

application is finalised.

— The review teams submit their evaluation reports to the EIT which then forwards them to the EIT

Labelling Committee.

— The EIT Director having considered the evaluation reports of the review teams and the

corresponding comments of the EIT Labelling Committee decides as to the initial award or the

renewal of the award of the EIT Label for each of the submitted programmes.

— In cases where there are recommendations for improvement for a particular programme prior

to the award or renewal of the EIT Label, those recommendations are forwarded to the relevant

programme that has a period of up to 2 months maximum to report back on the application of

the recommendations. The EIT Education Officer reports on the application of the

recommendations to the EIT Director who consults with the EIT Labelling Committee and

decides on the award or renewal of the EIT Label.

— The EIT HQ reports on the outcomes of the given round of the EIT labelling process to the KICs,

informing them on the relevant validity period regarding the positive decisions and any other

conditions underlying the granting/renewal of the EIT Label.

— The EIT HQ also updates the information on the EIT’s website regarding the EIT Label awards on

the basis of the outcome of the given evaluations.

63

Annex 4 Templates for academic modules

The templates for academic modules are included as an annex to this version of the Handbook as a

reference for programme coordinators (programme responsible at HEI) as well as for reviewers in order

to facilitate the self- evaluation and review processes.

Template AM0 – Compulsory requirements for academic modules


No Assessment Field Evaluation

yes or no


0.1.1 Are at least 2 partner universities engaged in the implementation of the academic

module?

yes/no

0.1.2 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in the development of the curriculum?

yes/no

0.1.3 Are at least 2 non-academic partners actively engaged in teaching activities? yes/no

0.1.4 If the thesis is included in this module, do all students receive both academic and non- academic support on their mandatory thesis?

yes/no


0.2.1 Does the academic module cover at least 30 ECTS? yes/no

0.2.2 n/a

0.2.3 n/a



for selection purpose?

yes/no

0.3.2 Do the universities delivering the academic module conduct the application, selection and admission of students jointly?

0.3.3 Is there a tracking system for students who take this academic module? yes/no

0.3.4 Are students enrolled to this academic module via a regular university system? yes/no

0.35 Is there an alumni network provided for the students who take this academic module, including students also from other EIT academic modules and /or EIT-labelled programmes?

yes/no

0.3.6 Is there an alumni network provided for the students who take this academic module, including students also from other EIT academic modules and /or EIT-labelled programmes?

yes/no


0.4.1 Is the academic module fully taught in English? yes/no

0.4.2 Is ‘EIT’ included in relation to the academic module? yes/no

0.4.3 Is the EIT logo on the academic module certificate or will a separate certificate be provided?

yes/no

0.4.4 Is this academic module part of a KIC university’s regular study offerings of 2nd or 3rd cycle levels?

yes/no

64

0.4.5 n/a yes/no

0.4.6 Does the academic module cover the EIT OLO 1 or OLO 2? yes/no

0.4.7 Are the results of summative academic module assessments produced by the students (such as reports, etc.) stored for later EIT follow-up review purposes?

yes/no

0.5 n/a

0.6 n/a

Total: go/no go

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------



compulsory components of EIT-labelled academic modules. Criteria are assessed on a yes/no scale and all


not be the case, the review should halt here so that the programme owner can be contacted.


— The official module description.

— A coverage table where module ILOs are mapped against the obligatory EIT OLOs 1 and 2 and

any of the other 7 EIT OLOs if applicable.

— Supporting documents showing that the module fulfils all other compulsory requirements.

65

Template AM1 – Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage








Total:





Assessment field 1.1 Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage

— 1.1 Are any other than the compulsory EIT OLOs (1 and 2) reported as covered and in that case

specified sufficiently in the module?

Assessment field 1.1 Aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage

— 1.1.1 (EIT OLO 1): Is ‘the ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans

and decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to

merge this into a solution-focused approach, moving towards a sustainable society’ specified

sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.2 (EIT OLO 2): Is ‘the ability to transform innovations into feasible business solutions’

specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.3 Not compulsory (EIT OLO 3): Is ‘the ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically

explore and generate new ideas’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.4 Not compulsory (EIT OLO 4): Is ‘the ability to use knowledge, ideas or technologies to

create new or significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, new business

models or jobs’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.5 Not compulsory: (EIT OLO 5): Is ‘the ability to use cutting-edge research methods,

processes and techniques towards new venture creation and growth and to apply these also in

cross-disciplinary teams and contexts’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.6 Not compulsory: (EIT OLO 6): Is ‘the ability to transform practical experiences into research

problems and challenges’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic module?

— 1.1.7 Not compulsory: (EIT OLO 7): Is ‘the ability of decision-making and leadership, based on a

holistic understanding of the contributions of higher education, research and business to value

66

creation, in limited sized teams and contexts’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the academic

module?

— 1.1.8 n/a

Assessment field 1.2 General quality of intended learning outcomes

— 1.2.1 Are the intended learning outcomes assessable, that is, with clear descriptions of skills and

competencies rather than just content knowledge?

— 1.2.2 Are the intended learning outcomes at the right academic level?

Assessment field 1.3 Fit-for-purpose assessment

— 1.3.1 Are the assessment tasks given to the students fit for purpose in relation to content?

— 1.3.2 Are the assessment tasks given to the students fit for purpose in relation to form (i.e.

content-, competence-, or impact-based depending on the ILO)?

Assessment field 1.4 Availability and format of grading system and assessment criteria (grade descriptors)

— 1.4.1 Are rules and regulations for assessing and grading available to students in advance?

— 1.4.2 Are EIT OLO appropriate assessment criteria (grade descriptors) used when assessing and

grading student work?

Assessment field 1.5 Activating and appropriate learning methods

— 1.5.1 Are teaching and learning methods designed to activate the students?

— 1.5.2 Are teaching and learning methods appropriate for reaching the intended learning

outcomes?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------


— 1.1 and 1.2 The official module description

— 1.1 and 1.2 The coverage table provided for template 0, where module ILOs are mapped against

any of the other 7 EIT OLOs than 1 and 2, if this is applicable

— 1.4.1 Official documents describing rules and regulations for assessment and grading

— 1.4.2 Document with specified EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors; see Annex 2 ‘Examples

for EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work’ for example) used for

this module

— 1.5.1 Detailed descriptions on teaching and learning methods

— Any other documents that you find give evidence of the assessment fields of the indicator

— An Annex where all the attached supporting documents for this quality indicator are listed for

easy access for the reviewers

67


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------



— As guidelines for your evaluation use the ‘EIT overarching learning outcomes’ and Annex 2

‘Examples for EIT assessment criteria (grade descriptors) for assessing student work’ in addition

to explanations of terms and concepts in this document.


68

Template AM2 – EIT Learning environment and facilities






Total:






— 2.1.1 Are students actively offered the KICs or a university-based innovation ecosystem,

including technical, financial and human services and means (e.g. incubators, mentoring and

coaching, by business developers, seed funding etc.) to develop their entrepreneurial skills and

competencies and to test out the commercial potential and viability of their

ideas/learning/research outcomes?

— 2.1.2 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in curriculum development?

— 2.1.3 Are non-academic partners sufficiently involved in teaching activities?

— 2.1.4 If the academic module involves the MSc thesis, do all students receive joint

academic/non- academic supervision in their theses work?

— 2.1.5 Does the academic module promote students’ non-academic professional networks

sufficiently?

— 2.1.6 n/a


— 2.2.1 Does the academic module provide sufficient opportunities for on-the-job learning,

exposing students to the reality of professional life outside university?

— 2.2.2 Does the academic module go beyond the borders of science and technology and also

address broad societal and global challenges?

— 2.2.3 Does the academic module have a trans-disciplinary approach?

Assessment field 2.3 Mobility, European dimension, and openness to the world

— 2.3.1 If the academic module entails mobility, is the international mobility organised so that it

sufficiently supports students achieving the intended learning outcomes of the academic

module?

69

— 2.3.2 If the academic module entails mobility, is the academic and non-academic mobility

organised so that it sufficiently supports students achieving the intended learning outcomes of

the academic module?

— 2.3.3 Does the academic module have a well-balanced recruitment of European vs. non-

European students?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------


The supporting documents that need to be provided for this Quality indicator can vary. Apart from the

module description, they may consist of websites, partner agreements etc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




70

Template AM3 – The results





3.3 Retention rates

3.4 R&D activities projects on KIC educational activities

Total:





Assessment field 3.1 Students’ entrepreneurship competencies

— 3.1.1 Does the academic module foster entrepreneurship competencies?

Assessment field 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes

— 3.2.1 Does the sample from the self-evaluation demonstrate that students have achieved the EIT

OLOs included in the academic module?

Assessment field 3.3 Retention rates

— 3.3.1 Does the academic module have a 90% or higher retention rate?

— 3.3.2 Does the academic module provide a satisfactory analysis in the case of retention rates

lower than 90%?

Assessment field 3.4 R&D activities projects on KIC educational activities

— 3.4.1 Have there been any R&D activities related to the academic module?

— 3.4.2 If yes on 3.4.1, have these led to new knowledge about what developments in the

academic module are needed, alternatively of ‘what works in this context’?

— 3.4.3 If yes on 3.4.1, have they led to knowledge based decisions on what to keep or what to

change in the academic module?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------


— 3.2 A selection of student work (e.g., assessment tasks, reports etc.) either as hard copies or

other type of access. This selection should:

71

Cover 30% of the students per student cohort

Give examples of what is considered lowest, medium and highest quality

Please note that group works also are fully acceptable

— 3.3 Retention rates together with a short analysis of student retention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For reviewing 3.2 Achieved learning outcomes: please note that all student products have already been

assessed according to each university’s rules and criteria and hence should not be assessed again here,

the review focus is primarily on KIC added value.


72

Template AM4 – Stakeholder Experiences






Total:





Assessment field 4.1 Student experiences

— 4.1.1 Are students given the opportunity to express their views of the academic module in the

form of surveys, focus groups etc.?

— 4.1.2 Are questions included that are directly focused on the EIT profile; EIT OLOs, learning by

doing, a clear connection with non-academic contexts etc.?

— 4.1.3 Are the results presented of these surveys, focus groups etc. satisfactory?


— 4.2.1 Are alumni given the opportunity to express their views of the academic module in the

form of surveys, focus groups etc.?

— 4.2.2 Are questions included about positive career changes related to taking the academic

course (advancements, job changes etc.)?



— 4.3.1 Are other stakeholders (labour market, policy makers,…) given the opportunity to express

their views of the academic module on a regular basis in the form of surveys, focus groups etc.?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


73

— Describe the methods (surveys, focus groups etc.) you use for gathering experiences and

opinions from students, alumni and other stakeholders. (Other stakeholders can be employers,

non-academic partners, innovation and/or entrepreneurship support actors, etc.)

— Present in annexes the last results of these inquiries for the three groups.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------




74

Annex 5 Overview of the EIT overarching learning outcomes for EIT-

labelled masters and doctoral programmes

Master Doctoral Making value judgments and sustainability competencies (EIT OLO 1)

The ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans and decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge this into a solution-focused approach, moving towards a sustainable society.

The ability to identify short- and long-term future consequences of plans and decisions from an integrated scientific, ethical and intergenerational perspective and to merge this into their professional activities, moving towards a sustainable society.

Entrepreneurship skills and competencies (EIT OLO 2)

The ability to translate innovations into feasible

business solutions

The ability to translate innovations into feasible

business solutions and to lead and support others in

this process

Creativity skills and competencies (EIT OLO 3)

The ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and generate new ideas.

The ability to think beyond boundaries and systematically explore and generate new ideas and to inspire and support others in this process and contribute to the further development of those ideas.

Innovation skills and competencies (EIT OLO 4)

The ability to use knowledge, ideas and technology to create new or significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, new business models or jobs.

The ability to apply their research experiences combined with the knowledge, ideas and technology of others to create, test and implement new or significantly improved products, services, processes, policies, new business models or jobs.

Research skills and competencies (EIT OLO 5)

The ability to use cutting-edge research methods, processes and techniques towards new venture creation and growth and to apply these also in cross- disciplinary teams and contexts.

The ability to produce cutting-edge original research

and to extend and develop cutting-edge research methods, processes and techniques towards new venture creation and growth also using cross- disciplinary approaches.

Intellectual transforming skills and competencies (EIT OLO 6)

The ability to transform practical experiences into research problems and challenges.

The ability to autonomously and systematically transform practical experiences into research problems and challenges and to lead and support others in this process.

Leadership skills and competencies (EIT OLO 7)

The ability of decision-making and leadership, based on a holistic understanding of the contributions of higher education, research and business to value creation, in limited sized teams and contexts.

The ability of decision-making and leadership based on a holistic understanding of the contributions of higher education, research and business to value creation.

75

Annex 6 Overview of the assessment fields for EIT-labelled

integrated and non-integrated masters and doctoral

programmes

Sub-

assessment

field (#)

Integrated master’s

programme sub-assessment

field (title)

Non-integrated master’s


field (title)

Doctoral sub-assessment

field (title)

Indicator 0 compulsory requirements


0.1.1

Are at least 2 partner

universities engaged in the

implementation of the

programme?



implementation of the add-

on module?



implementation of the

programme?

0.1.2

Are at least 2 non-academic

partners actively engaged in

the development of the

curriculum?




curriculum of the add-on

module?




curriculum?

0.1.3



teaching activities?



teaching activities of the add-

on module?



teaching activities?

0.1.4

Do all students receive both

academic and non-academic

support for their mandatory

thesis?

Do all students receive both

academic and non-academic

support for their mandatory

thesis of the coupling

mechanisms?

Do doctoral candidates

receive both academic and

non-academic support for

their mandatory thesis?


0.2.1

Does the programme cover at least 90 ECTS including EIT KIC Added Value?

Does the host programme

cover at least 90 ECTS and

does the add-on module

cover at least 30 ECTS?

Does the length of the

programme comply with

Salzburg II Recommendations

(three to four years’ full time

equivalent) for Doctoral

Programmes, including KIC

added value?

76

Sub-

assessment

field (#)



field (title)



field (title)


field (title)

0.2.2

Is a Diploma Supplement

provided to each student?

Is a Diploma Supplement for

the host programme

provided to each student?

Is a Diploma Supplement for

the programme provided to

each doctoral candidate?

0.2.3

Is the degree recognised in

all the countries of the

awarding universities?

Is the degree of the host

programme recognised in all

the awarding countries?

Is the degree of the

programme recognised in the

countries of the awarding

universities?


0.3.1

Are special criteria for the

assessment of the students’

entrepreneurial potential

used for selection purpose?


assessment of the students’

entrepreneurial potential

used for selection purpose of

the add-on module?


assessment of the doctoral

candidates’ entrepreneurial

potential used for selection

purpose?

0.3.2

Do the universities delivering

the programme conduct the

application, selection and

admission of students

jointly?


the host programme and the

add-on module conduct the


admission of students

jointly?


the programme conduct the


admission of doctoral

candidates jointly?

0.3.3

Is there a student tracking

system?

Is there a student tracking

system for the host

programme, the add-on

module and the coupling

mechanisms?

Is there a doctoral candidates

tracking system?

0.3.4

n/a Are students enrolled to the

add-on module via a regular

university system?

n/a

0.3.5

Is there a KIC alumni

organisation planned for the

new programme (applicable

for labelling)?



add-on module and the

coupling mechanisms

(applicable for labelling

reviews)?



new programme (applicable

for labelling)?

77

Sub-

assessment

field (#)



field (title)



field (title)


field (title)

0.3.6


organisation for graduates

from the programme

(applicable for reviews)?



from the add-on module and

the coupling mechanisms




from the programme



0.4.1

Is the programme fully

taught in English?

Is the add-on module fully

taught in English?

Is the programme fully

taught in English?

0.4.2

Is ‘EIT’ included in relation to

the programme?


the add-on module and the

coupling mechanisms?


the programme?

0.4.3

Is the EIT logo on the degree

certificate, and/or on the DS,

or will a separate certificate

be provided?


certificate, and/or on the DS

of the add-on module and

the coupling mechanisms, or

will a separate certificate be

provided?


certificate or will a separate

certificate be provided?

0.4.4

n/a Is this add-on module part of

a KIC university’s regular

study offerings of 2nd or 3rd

cycle levels?

n/a

0.4.5 n/a n/a n/a

0.4.6

n/a Does the host programme

cover the EIT OLO 1 or

OLO 2?

n/a

0.4.7

Are the results of summative

programme assessments

produced by the students

(such as reports, etc.) stored

for later EIT review

purposes?


add-on module and coupling

mechanisms assessments

produced by the students

(such as reports, etc.) stored

for later EIT follow up review

purposes?


programme assessments

produced by the doctoral

candidates (such as reports,

etc.) stored for later EIT

follow up review purposes?

0.5 Mobility

78

0.5.1 Does the mobility have a

workload equivalent of 30

ECTS or more?

Does the mobility of the

coupling programme have a

workload of an equivalent of

30 ECTS or more?

Does the mobility have a

workload equivalent of 30

ECTS or more?

0.5.2 Does the international and

the cross-organisational

mobility each have a

workload equivalent of at

least 15 ECTS?

Is the mobility of the

coupling programme

composed of at least an

equivalent of 15 ECTS for

both international and for

cross-organisational

mobility?

Is the mobility composed of

at least an equivalent of 15

ECTS for both international

and for cross-organisational

mobility?

0.6 Coupling mechanisms between the original degree awarding master programme and the EIT Academic Module leading to the non-integrated EIT labelled programme

0.6.1 n/a

Is there a joint

planning/governance

between the original degree

awarding master

programmes and the EIT

Academic Module leading to

the non-integrated EIT

labelled programme?

n/a

0.6.2 n/a

Does the host programme

master thesis fulfil at least

EIT OLOs 1 and 2?

n/a

79

Sub-

assessment

field (#)

Integrated and non-integrated master’s

programme sub-assessment field (title)

Doctoral sub-assessment field (title)

Indicator 1 aligned teaching and EIT OLO coverage


1.1.1

EIT OLO 1: Is ‘the ability to identify short-

and long-term future consequences of plans

and decisions from an integrated scientific,

ethical and intergenerational perspective

and to merge this into a solution-focused

approach, moving towards a sustainable

society’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of

the programme (host programme, the add-

on I&E module and the coupling

mechanisms)?

Does the doctoral work plan template

sufficiently cover and address how the

candidate will develop EIT OLO 1: ‘the ability

to identify short- and long-term future

consequences of plans and decisions from an

integrated scientific, ethical and

intergenerational perspective and to merge

this into their professional activities, moving

towards a sustainable society’.

1.1.2

EIT OLO 2: Is ‘the ability to transform

innovations into feasible business solutions’

specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the

programme (host programme, the add-on

I&E module and the coupling mechanisms)?




to translate innovations into feasible business

solutions and to lead and support others in

this process’.

1.1.3

EIT OLO 3: Is ‘the ability to think beyond

boundaries and systematically explore and

generate new ideas’ specified sufficiently by

the ILOs of the programme (coupling

mechanisms)?




to think beyond boundaries and

systematically explore and generate new

ideas and to inspire and support others in this

process and contribute to the further

development of those ideas.’

1.1.4

EIT OLO 4: Is ‘the ability to use knowledge,

ideas or technologies to create new or

significantly improved products, services,

processes, policies, new business models or

jobs’ specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the

programme (coupling mechanisms)?




to apply their research experiences combined

with the knowledge, ideas and technology of

others to create, test and implement new or

significantly improved products, services,

processes, policies, new business models or

jobs.’

80

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




1.1.5

EIT OLO 5: ‘the ability to use cutting-edge

research methods, processes and techniques

towards new venture creation and growth

and to apply these also in cross- disciplinary

teams and contexts’ specified sufficiently by

the ILOs of the programme (coupling

mechanisms)?




to produce cutting-edge original research and

to extend and develop cutting-edge research

methods, processes and techniques towards

new venture creation and growth also using

cross-disciplinary approaches.’

1.1.6

EIT OLO 6: Is ‘the ability to transform

practical experiences into research problems

and challenges’ specified sufficiently by the

ILOs of the programme (coupling

mechanisms)?



candidate will develop EIT OLO 6: ‘The ability

to autonomously and systematically

transform practical experiences into research

problems and challenges and to lead and

support others in this process.’

1.1.7

EIT OLO 7: Is ‘the ability of decision- making

and leadership, based on a holistic

understanding of the contributions of higher

education, research and business to value

creation, in limited sized teams and contexts’

specified sufficiently by the ILOs of the

programme (coupling mechanisms)?




of decision-making and leadership based on a

holistic understanding of the contributions of

higher education, research and business to

value creation.’

1.1.8

Do a sufficient number of courses of the


I&E module and the coupling mechanisms)

deal with relevant content for the thematic

field of the KIC?

Does the PhD thesis deal with relevant

content for the thematic field for the KIC?


1.2.1

Are the intended learning outcomes of the



assessable, that is, with clear descriptions of

skills and competencies rather than just

content knowledge?

n/a

1.2.2

Are the intended learning outcomes of the


I&E module and the coupling mechanisms) at

the right academic level?

n/a

81

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




1.3 Fit for purpose assessment

1.3.1

Are the assessment tasks of the programme

(host programme, the add-on I&E module

and the coupling mechanisms) given to the

students fit for purpose in relation to

content?

n/a

1.3.2

Are the assessment tasks of the programme

(host programme, the add-on I&E module

and the coupling mechanisms) given to the

students fit for purpose in relation to form

(i.e. content-, competence-, or impact-

based, depending on the ILO)?

n/a


1.4.1

Are rules and regulations for assessing and

grading of the programme (host programme,

the add-on I&E module and the coupling

mechanisms) available to students in

advance?

n/a

1.4.2

Are assessment criteria (grade descriptors)

used when assessing and grading student

work from the programme (host

programme, the add-on I&E module and the


n/a


1.5.1

Are teaching and learning methods of the



designed to activate the students?

n/a

1.5.2

Are teaching and learning methods of the



appropriate for achieving the intended

learning outcomes?

n/a

82

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




Indicator 2 EIT learning environment and facilities


2.1.1

Are students of the programme (add-on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) actively offered the KICs or a university-based innovation ecosystem, including technical, financial and human services and means (e.g. incubators, mentoring and coaching, by business developers, seed funding etc.) to develop their entrepreneurial skills and competencies and to test out the commercial potential and viability of their ideas/learning/research outcomes?

Are doctoral candidates actively offered the

KICs or a university-based innovation

ecosystem, including technical, financial and

human services and means (e.g. incubators,

mentoring and coaching, by business

developers, seed funding etc.) to develop

their entrepreneurial skills and competencies

and to test out the commercial potential and

viability of their ideas/learning/research

outcomes?

2.1.2

Are non-academic partners sufficiently

involved in the curriculum development of

the programme (add-on I&E module and



involved in the curriculum development?

2.1.3


involved in the teaching activities of the

programme (add-on I&E module and



involved in the teaching activities?

2.1.4

Do all students of the programme (coupling

mechanisms) receive joint academic/non-

academic supervision in their theses work?

Do doctoral candidates receive joint

academic/non-academic mentoring and

supervision in their theses work?

2.1.5

Does the programme (add-on I&E module

and coupling mechanisms) promote

students’ non-academic professional

networks sufficiently?

Does the programme promote the doctoral

candidates’ non-academic networks

sufficiently?

2.1.6

n/a

Are doctoral candidates offered leadership

training focused on the Knowledge Triangle for

value creation?

83

Sub-

assessment

field (#)





2.2.1


and coupling mechanisms) provide sufficient

opportunities for on-the-job learning,

exposing students to the reality of

professional life outside university?

Are doctoral candidates provided with

sufficient opportunities for on-the-job

learning, exposing them to the reality of

professional life outside university?

2.2.2


and coupling mechanisms) bring together

science/technology with broad societal and

global challenges?

Has the programme adopted a strong trans-

disciplinary approach to address broad

societal challenges and link up with new

business and innovation processes?

2.2.3

Does the programme (coupling mechanisms)

have a trans-disciplinary approach?

Are doctoral candidates performing an

internship outside university of minimum of

an equivalent of 30 ECTS?


2.3.1

Is the international mobility organised so

that it sufficiently supports students

achieving the intended learning outcomes of

the programme (coupling mechanisms)?

Is the international mobility organised so that

it sufficiently supports the doctoral

candidates achieving the intended learning

outcomes of the studies?

2.3.2

Is the academic and non-academic mobility

organised so that it sufficiently supports

students achieving the intended learning

outcomes of the programme (add-on I&E


Is the academic and non-academic mobility

organised so that it sufficiently supports

doctoral candidates achieving the intended

learning outcomes of the studies?

2.3.3


and coupling mechanisms) have a well-

balanced recruitment of European vs. non-

European students?

Does the programme have a well-balanced

recruitment of European vs. non-European

doctoral candidates?

84

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




Indicator 3 Results


3.1.1

Does the programme (add-on I&E module)

foster entrepreneurship competencies?

Does the programme foster entrepreneurship

competencies?


3.2.1

Does the sample from the programme

(coupling mechanisms) self-evaluation

demonstrate that the students have

achieved all EIT OLOs?

Does the sample from the programme self-

evaluation demonstrate that the doctoral

candidates have achieved all EIT OLOs?

3.3 Retention rates

3.3.1


have a 90% or higher retention rate?

Does the programme have a 90% or higher

retention rate?

3.3.2


provide a satisfactory analysis in the case of

retention rates lower than 90%?

Does the programme provide a satisfactory

analysis in the case of retention rates lower

than 90%?

3.4 Research and development activities on KIC educational activities

3.4.1

Have there been any R&D activities related to

the programme (respectively add-on I&E


Have there been any R&D activities related to

the programme?

85

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




3.4.2

If yes on 3.4.1, have these led to new

knowledge about what developments in the

programme (respectively add-on I&E module

and coupling mechanisms) are needed,

alternatively of ‘what works in this context’?

If yes on 3.4.1, have these led to new

knowledge about what developments in the

programme are needed, alternatively of ‘what

works’?

3.4.3

If yes on 3.4.1: Have they led to knowledge-

based decisions on what to keep or what to

change in the programme (add- on I&E


If yes on 3.4.1, have these decisions led to

knowledge-based decisions on what to keep

or what to change in the programme?

Indicator 4 Stakeholder experience

4.1 Student experience

4.1.1

Are students given the opportunity to

express their views of the full programme

(host programme, add-on I&E module and

coupling mechanisms) on a regular basis in

the form of surveys, focus groups, etc.?

Does the programme give doctoral candidates

the opportunity to express their views of the

programme on a regular basis in the form of


4.1.2

Are questions (regarding the add-on I&E

module and coupling mechanisms) included

that are directly focused on the EIT profile;

EIT OLOs, learning by doing, clear

connections with non-academic contexts,

etc.?

Are questions included that are directly

focused on the EIT profile; EIT OLOs, learning

by doing, clear connection with non-

academic contexts, etc.?

4.1.3

Are the results presented of these surveys,

focus groups etc. satisfactory?

Are the results from these surveys, focus

groups etc. satisfactory?

4.2 Alumni experience

4.2.1

Are alumni given the opportunity to express

their views of the full programme (add-on

I&E module and coupling mechanisms) on a

regular basis in the form of surveys, focus

groups, etc.?

Does the programme give alumni the

opportunity to express their views of the

programme on a regular basis in the form of


86

Sub-

assessment

field (#)




4.2.2

Are questions included about positive career

changes (advancements, job changes, etc.)

related to graduating from the full

programme (add-on I&E module and


Are questions included about positive career

changes related to graduating from the

programme (advancements, job changes,

etc.)?

4.2.3


focus groups, etc., satisfactory?



4.3 Other stakeholder experience

4.3.1

Are other stakeholders (labour market,

policy makers, etc.) given the opportunity to

express their views of the programme (add-

on I&E module and coupling mechanisms) on

a regular basis in the form of surveys, focus

groups, etc.?

Are other stakeholders (labour market, policy

makers, etc.) given the opportunity to express

their views of the programme on a regular

basis in the form of surveys, focus groups,

etc.?

4.3.2





87

Annex 7 Overview of the evaluation objects within the EIT labelling

system

Not included in EIT labelling system4 Included in the EIT labelling system

Evaluation objects: KIC

Nuggets5

KIC

Courses6

KIC Modules7

EIT-labelled

non-integrated

master

programmes

EIT-labelled

integrated

master’s

programme

EIT-labelled

doctoral

programme

Length ‘small’ No less

than 3

ECTS

No less than

30 ECTS

2nd cycle

(minimum 90 ECTS

and 30 ECTS I&E

add- on module

and coupling

mechanisms to

ensure EIT added

value)

2nd cycle

(minimum 90

ECTS)

3rd cycle

(minimum 180

ECTS) Including

60 ECTS mobility

(geographical

and cross-

organisational)

Including 30

ECTS I&E add-on

module

Quality Assurance

process

Metadata

compliance

EIT Course

evaluation

based on

OLO

coverage

EIT module

evaluation

based on

OLO

coverage

1: EIT programme

evaluation

2: Host

programme

included in

national and

regional Quality

Assurance

1: EIT

programme

evaluation

2:

Programmes

Included in

national and

regional

Quality

Assurance

1: EIT

programme

evaluation

2: Programmes

Included in

national and

regional Quality

Assurance

Template No Yes Yes All M-Templates

(M0 for non-

integrated

programmes)

All M-

Templates

(M0 for

integrated

programmes)

All D-Templates

Student/Learner

recognition

None KIC course

certificate

KIC module

certificate

1: University

degree

2: EIT Label Non-

integrated Master

Programme

certificate.

3: Diploma

Supplement

1: University

degree

2: EIT Label

Integrated

Master

Programme

certificate

3: Diploma

Supplement

1: University

degree

2: EIT Label Doctoral Programme certificate

4 Examples on possible evaluation objects are: academic, professional and online courses and modules. 5 A nugget is the smallest learning unit used. A nugget has no ECTS attached to it. Sets of nuggets form a course. 6 A course is a learning unit with a workload equivalent of no less than 3 ECTS. 7 A module is a learning unit made up of a set of courses that together cover a workload of no less than 30 ECTS.

88

References i Adamson, L & Flodström, A. (2011). Teaching for Quality in the Knowledge Triangle – European Institute

of Innovation and Technology’s (EIT) coming Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement Model.

Conference proceedings The future of Education, Florence, Italy, 16-17 June, 2011. Available at [2015-09-

23]: http://conference.pixel-online.net/edu_future/common/download/Paper_pdf/ITL50-Adamson.pdf

ii Flodström, A., Colombo, G., Adamson, L., and Fammels, M., (2011). EIT’s Strategic Innovation Agenda

(SIA) Investing in Innovation Beyond 2014. Available at [2015-09-23]:

http://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EIT_Strategic_Innovation_Agenda_Final.pdf

iii See: EIT Strategic Innovation Agenda. Available at [2015-09-23]: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0892:0923:EN:PDF

iv The EIT Label Framework. Budapest June 3, 2015.

v ENQA (2009). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area

3rd (ESG). Available at [2015-09-23]: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ESG_3edition-

2.pdf

vi ENQA Position Paper on Quality Assurance in the EHEA (2009). Available at [2015-09-23]:

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ENQA_Position_Paper_

March_2009.pdf

vii ESU (2010). Student-Centred Learning - Toolkit. Available at [2015-09-23]: http://www.esu-

online.org/resources/6068/Student-Centred-Learning-Toolkit/

viii EUA (2010). The Salzburg Recommendations II. Available at [2015-09-23]:

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/Salzburg_II_Recommendations

ix EUA (2010). EUA Policy Statement on Quality and Quality Assurance. Available at [2015-09-23]:

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA-QA-Policy-2010.pdf?sfvrsn=4

x Bogle, D. LERU (2010). Doctoral degrees beyond 2010. Available at [2015-09-23]:

http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_Doctoral_degrees_beyond_2010.pdf

xi The EIT Label Framework. Budapest June 3, 2015.

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ENQA_Position_Paper_March

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ENQA_Position_Paper_March

89

xii ENQA (2009). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area

3rd ESG). Available at [2015-09-23]: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ESG_3edition-

2.pdf

xiii Qualification Framework of European Higher Education Area Available at [2015-10-22]:

http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=67

xiv EIT Regulations. Available at [2015-09-23]: http://eit.europa.eu/eit-community/documents

xv Högskoleverket (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education) (2009). Quality Evaluations in Learning,

Report 2009, 25 R.

xvi Recommendations for Doctoral Education by Europe’s University – Salzburg Principles and Salzburg II

Recommendations. Available at [2015-09-29]: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/cde-

website/Alexandra_Bitukisova_Thomas_Jorgensen_WG_Id.pdf?sfvrsn=0

xvii Doctoral degrees beyond 2010: Training talented researchers for society. Available at [2015-09-29]:

http://www.leru.org/files/publications/LERU_Doctoral_degrees_beyond_2010.pdf

xviii Guidance on ECTS available at [2015-09-23]: http://ec.europa.eu/education/ects/ects_en.htm

xix Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for

educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.

xx Adamson, L. (2010, invited). Teaching for Quality in the Knowledge Triangle – how do we do it?

European Institute of Innovation and Technology, EIT, Education Conference, ‘The role of the EIT in the

Education Landscape’, Leuven - 2 & 3 December 2010.

xxi Adamson, L & Flodström, A. (2013, in press). EU and Bologna - A New Educational Agenda for the

Knowledge Society and its Global Students. In The Global Student Experience: An International and

Comparative Analysis. Eds. Camille B. K., and Weyers, M. International Higher Education Series, Routledge

Taylor Francis.

xxii Adamson, L. (2011). On aims/objectives, learning outcomes and aligned teaching. Working material

produced for SKVC - the National Lithuanian Quality Assurance Agency.

xxiii Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) available

at [2015-09-29]: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ESG_endorsed-with-changed-

foreword.pdf

xxiv Price, M., O´Donovan, B., Rust, C., Carrol J. (2008). Assessment Standards: A Manifesto for Change. The

Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 2, issue 3.

xxv Rust, C., Price, M., & O´Donovan, B. (2003) Improving Students’ Learning by Developing their

Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol

28, No. 2.

90

xxvi O'Donovan, B., Price, M., Rust, C., (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment standards:

a nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 1470-1294, Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages

205 – 217.

xxvii Adamson, L. (2010, invited). Quality, grades and fair assessment. Swedish Student Union, February

2010.

xxviii Hake, R. (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of

mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys., Vol. 66, No. 1, January

xxix Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering

Education, 93(3), 223-231.

xxx Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. & Su. T. T. (2009 ). Why

Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science, Vol. 323 no. 5910

pp. 122-124.

xxxi Gibbs, G. (1982), Twenty Terrible Reasons for Lecturing, SCED Occasional Paper No. 8, p.27.

xxxii Adamson, L. (2011, invited). Quality Assurance and Student Centred Learning – Can QA be a tool that

helps shifting the paradigm? Chinese University of Hong Kong, CUHK.

xxxiii John Biggs,J. (1999): What the student Does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education

Research & Development, 18:1,57-75. Available at [2015-09-23]:

http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105

Documents

EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement Model · EIT Quality Assurance and Learning Enhancement Model ... The definition of joint curriculum development ... integrated scientific,